• English
  • 简体中文
  • 繁體中文
  • Tiếng Việt
  • ไทย
  • Indonesia
Subscribe
Real-time News
On April 6, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Bagheei stated that Tehran has finalized its demands in the context of recent proposals to end the war, but will only announce them at an appropriate time, emphasizing that Iran will not succumb to pressure. He stated, "A few days ago, they put forward some proposals through intermediaries, and this 15-point US plan was conveyed through Pakistan and some other friendly countries." He added, "Such proposals are extremely ambitious, unusual, and illogical." He stressed that Iran has its own framework. "Based on our own interests and our considerations, we have compiled and formulated a series of demands that we have put forward in the past and present." He also denied that contact with mediators meant weakness. "The fact that Iran has quickly and bravely expressed its position on a proposal should not be seen as a sign of surrendering to the enemy."A spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry said on the 6th that Iran is prepared to respond to the mediators and will provide timely updates if necessary.Kazakhstans Ministry of Energy: The attack on the Russian port of Novorossiysk did not affect Kazakhstans oil exports.On March 31, it was announced that the GF Dow Jones U.S. Oil Exploration and Production Index Securities Investment Fund (QDII-LOF) (Fund Code: 162719, Stock Exchange Abbreviation: Oil LOF) managed by GF Fund Management Co., Ltd. will be suspended from trading from the opening of the market on April 7, 2026 until 10:30 on the same day, and will resume trading at 10:30 on April 7, 2026.Fitch has placed Qatar Bank on its negative rating watch list.

Hershey, Nestle, and Cargill win the dismissal of a claim of child slavery in the United States

Charlie Brooks

Jun 29, 2022 11:06


Tuesday, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. dismissed a case brought by eight Malians claiming child slavery on Ivory Coast cocoa plantations against Hershey Co (NYSE:HSY), Nestle SA (SIX:NESN), Cargill Inc, and others.


U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich determined that the proposed class action plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue because they failed to prove a "traceable nexus" between the seven defendant companies and the individual farms where the plaintiffs worked.


She added that the plaintiffs did not adequately explain the role of intermediaries in the cocoa supply chain, and that the companies did not oversee actions in "free zones" where 70 to 80 percent of cocoa is farmed.


Mali and Ivory Coast share a border in West Africa.


The plaintiffs claimed they were trafficked as children after being approached by strangers who promised them employment for which they would be compensated, but did not pay them, threatened them with starvation if they did not work, and forced them to live in squalor.


Their attorney, Terry Collingsworth, said that the plaintiffs plan to file an appeal to "compel the businesses to keep their agreements and put an end to this dreadful system they have created."


Other defendants included Mars Inc, Mondelez International Inc (NASDAQ:MDLZ), Barry Callebaut AG, and Olam International Ltd.


In court filings, the seven defendants said that they "strongly abhor the practice of forced labor" and that they were addressing non-forced child labor in cocoa supply chains.


However, they contended that the plaintiffs' too broad legal theory may hold too many parties liable for forced child labor, including consumers and merchants who would benefit from lower prices.


In accordance with the Reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the plaintiffs filed suit.


The Supreme Court of the United States rejected a similar case brought by six Malians against Cargill and Nestle under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 in June of last year.


This was the most recent in a line of judgments denying access to federal courts based on human rights breaches occurring outside the United States.


Coubaly et al. v. Cargill Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, case number 21-00386.