EUR/USD 1.16790
-0.098%
Gold 4532.23
0.189%
Oil 101.155
-1.169%
USD/JPY 157.283
0.019%
GBP/USD 1.35173
-0.099%
GBP/JPY 212.608
-0.066%
Browse More
  • English
  • 简体中文
  • 繁體中文
  • Tiếng Việt
  • ไทย
  • Indonesia
Subscribe
Real-time News
On May 5th, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) raised its benchmark interest rate for the third consecutive time, highlighting its determination to curb stubborn high inflation and solidifying its position as the "lone wolf" among major central banks globally. The RBA voted 8-1 to raise the cash rate from 4.1% to 4.35%, completely reversing the monetary easing cycle of last year. In a statement, the bank said that after three rate hikes, monetary policy is well-prepared to respond to changing circumstances, and the committee is focused on achieving its mandate of price stability and full employment, and will take all necessary actions to achieve this goal. Currently, most economists expect the RBA to remain on hold for an extended period, but a minority believe there will be at least one more rate hike, a view shared by the money market. With three consecutive rate hikes, the RBA committee is also signaling that it prioritizes its 2% to 3% inflation target over all other considerations. This aggressive stance puts further pressure on the Australian government. With one week to go before the annual budget is released, it is expected to address war-related energy price increases and provide temporary cost-of-living relief for households.The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) stated that the committee will focus on data and evolving outlook and risk assessments to guide its decision-making.Reserve Bank of Australia: Higher fuel prices are exacerbating inflation, and there are signs that this could have a broader secondary impact on the prices of goods and services.The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) stated that the Middle East conflict has led to a sharp rise in fuel and related commodity prices, further exacerbating inflationary pressures.Reserve Bank of Australia: There are early signs that many businesses facing cost pressures are beginning to seek to raise prices for their goods and services.

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.


Suggestion