Fruth, Jamison & Elsass, PLLC
3902 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
By contacting Fruth, Jamison & Elsass, PLLC or any of its attorneys through this website you are neither retaining our firm nor establishing an attorney-client relationship with the firm nor any of its attorneys.
Since the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") conditionally registered Imprelis on August 31, 2010, DuPont has aggressively marketed the herbicide to lawn care professionals as being highly effective in killing weeds but with few environmental side effects. DuPont advertised Imprelis as "the most scientifically advanced turf herbicide in over 40 years," and stated that it "is effective against the most common broadleaf weeds of turf grass, plus many hard-to-control broadleaf weeds — making it an excellent choice for any weed management program." DuPont further promoted its "favorable environmental and toxicological characteristics," claiming that Imprelis has "[l]ow toxicity to mammals and low environmental impact," as well as "one of the lowest application rates in lawn care, making it easy on the environment."
However, immediately following its widespread use, Imprelis quickly "emerged as the leading suspect in the deaths of thousands of Norway spruces, eastern white pines and other trees on lawns and golf courses across the country."
There are reports from Minnesota and other states linking a lawn herbicide called Imprelis (active ingredient: aminocyclopyrachlor) with damage to certain kinds of coniferous trees, primarily White pine, White and Norway spruce. Typical symptoms on coniferous trees include twisting and curling, possibly followed by browning of needles, shoots and branch tips, which is consistent with herbicide injury. Injury has also been seen on various other ornamental plants and deciduous trees.
On June 17, 2011, DuPont sent a letter to turf management professionals (link to pdf of letter) stating that it was investigating the reports. In the meantime, DuPont recommended that Imprelis not be applied "where Norway Spruce or White Pine are present on, or in close proximity to, the property being treated." The letter contained no warning concerning the potential for damage to other trees and plants.
In July of 2011, the EPA announced that it launched an investigation into damage caused by Imprelis, and on August 11, the EPA banned the sale of Imprelis.
Our firm currently represents property owners who had mature pine trees and deciduous trees and plants damaged or killed after Imprelis herbicide was applied to their lawns. Although initial reports indicated that the herbicide killed spruce and pine trees, there has also been damage to deciduous trees such as poplars and maples, as well as deciduous plants such as lilacs. According to DuPont, damage has been widespread in a geographic band that includes Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin.
If you think your trees or plants have been damaged by Imprelis, it is crucial that you preserve evidence of any damage to your trees or plants. You can do this by following some preliminary steps to preserve evidence of an Imprelis related injury.
If you think your trees or plants are damaged or dying from Imprelis-related exposure, please contact us for a free consultation concerning what steps you can take to protect yourself.
Trademark Notice Imprelis is a registered trademark of DuPont De Nemours & Company, used solely for product identification and informational purposes. Fruth, Jamison & Elsass is not affiliated with DuPont.
Represented a large law firm in a $40 million legal malpractice lawsuit. Following a five week jury trial, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed and the jury awarded the law firm $2 million on its counterclaim.
Represented a high net worth client in a FINRA dispute against a securities broker to recover excessive fees and damages associated with the purchase of unsuitable securities. Following a lengthy arbitration, the FINRA panel found in favor of our client and sanctioned the broker-dealer.
Represent the Receiver and Bankruptcy Trustees appointed after the collapse of a $3.6 billion Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Tom Petters. Our work on this matter includes overseeing the filing of more than 20 lawsuits seeking to recover funds for victims of the Ponzi scheme, including one lawsuit seeking to recover more than $250 million from a large financial institution.
Represented a company against claims that it was involved in a conspiracy to defeat a hostile tender offer for a publicly-traded company with which it merged. All claims against our client were eventually dismissed by the court. Mathstar, Inc. v. Tiberius Capital II LLC, 712 F. Supp. 2d 870 (D. Minn. 2010)
U.S. District Court (2002-04)
Obtained a jury verdict for our client, Michael Rivers, against claims for stock manipulation brought by the SEC. The SEC contended that Mr. Rivers had violated stock fraud statutes and rules by "marking the close," through his purchases of a thinly-traded stock at the end of the day. This case required explaining complicated investment and regulatory matters to the jury, and responding to the SEC's insistence that it had the power to declare what acts are illegal. The jury's defense verdict resulted from our case showing that Mr. Rivers had no intent to violate the law, especially since even his broker was not familiar with the securities industry guidelines that caution against late-in-the-day trades.
U.S. District Court (2001 to 2005
Represented two broker-dealers who lost tens of millions of dollars when MJK Clearing, a Minneapolis broker dealer, collapsed as a result of a massive securities lending and stock manipulation scheme. The collapse of MJK was the largest failure of a U.S. brokerage firm in at least 30 years and produced total claimed losses of over $200 million. Our clients, along with the Trustee for MJK Clearing and others, filed lawsuits against numerous defendants involved in the alleged fraud. The lawsuits, which were eventually settled in late 2005, involved highly complex issues of federal and state securities laws.
U.S. District Court (2003 to present)
Represented an extremely successful manager of a hedge fund in his compensation claims against Deephaven, a local investment firm that is owned by Knight Trading Group of New Jersey. Mr. Bergerson's employment contract was not renewed after his unsuccessful bid to join with partners in acquiring Deephaven from Knight. When Mr. Bergerson started his lawsuit, Deephaven responded with claims of unlawful competition and misappropriation of trade secrets, and sought a temporary restraining order in federal court. We successfully opposed the TRO by presenting evidence showing that the trade secret claim was contrived and that the information alleged to be "secret" had been distributed at investor meetings. Bergerson v. Deephaven Capital Management, LLC , 2003 WL 1824964 (D. Minn. 2003). The case continues concerning Mr. Bergerson's compensation claims, which depend in part upon the valuation of Deephaven's trading positions.
Hennepin County District Court (2002-04)
Represented the founding shareholder of a medical device manufacturer in a complex minority shareholder lawsuit. The company had become enormously successful based on Dr. Amplatz's device for the non-surgical repair of holes in the heart wall. The case involved competing claims of shareholder oppression, fraud and self-dealing regarding company assets, as well as FDA regulatory issues. The strategy required us to address many corporate governance issues, including some involving subsidiary companies.
Delaware Court of Chancery and Delaware Supreme Court (2002-2005)
This was a business valuation case we tried in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Our clients were shareholders of a publicly-traded company who dissented from a corporate merger, claiming that the merger consideration was below the fair value of the company. After trial, the Court of Chancery awarded our clients a fifty-percent increase over the price received by the shareholders that had accepted the merger price. Gholl v. eMachines, Inc., 2004 WL 2847865 (Del. Ch. 2004), aff'd 875 A.2d 632 (Del. 2005). The defendant company appealed the valuation ruling to the Delaware Supreme Court, which upheld the award in favor of our clients.
United States Supreme Court (1986)
Terry Fruth represented investors in a successful securities fraud lawsuit that was ultimately resolved by the United States Supreme Court. The case presented complex issues involving calculation of damages and tax and accounting principles. The issue before the Supreme Court was the interplay between damages available for securities fraud under Rule 10b-5 and tax laws. The Supreme Court reversed in favor of our clients by holding that the amount to be returned to the investor for rescission of the transaction was not subject to offset for tax benefits received while holding the investment, even though the investment had been sold as a tax shelter.