Asian Currencies Steady as Rupee Hits Record Low Amid Fed Rate Cut Bets 
Why financial hardship is more likely if you’re disabled or sick 
Visa to Move European Headquarters to London’s Canary Wharf 
Why have so few atrocities ever been recognised as genocide? 
U.S. Futures Steady as Rate-Cut Bets Rise on Soft Labor Data 
Momenta Quietly Moves Toward Hong Kong IPO Amid Rising China-U.S. Tensions 
Asian Currencies Steady as Markets Await Fed Rate Decision; Indian Rupee Hits New Record Low 
The American mass exodus to Canada amid Trump 2.0 has yet to materialize 
How to support someone who is grieving: five research-backed strategies 
Netflix Nearing Major Deal to Acquire Warner Bros Discovery Assets 
Dollar Slides to Five-Week Low as Asian Stocks Struggle and Markets Bet on Fed Rate Cut 
Glastonbury is as popular than ever, but complaints about the lineup reveal its generational challenge 
Proxy Advisors Urge Vote Against ANZ’s Executive Pay Report Amid Scandal Fallout 
Microchip Technology Boosts Q3 Outlook on Strong Bookings Momentum 
Dollar Weakens Ahead of Expected Federal Reserve Rate Cut 
Sam Altman Reportedly Explored Funding for Rocket Venture in Potential Challenge to SpaceX 
A federal judge has dismissed a 2019 lawsuit against Starbucks, filed by Balmuccino LLC, accusing the coffee giant of stealing its coffee-flavored lip balm trade secrets. The judge ruled that Balmuccino LLC waited too long to file the case in federal court.
The trade secret claim against Starbucks is over after a federal judge dismisses the lawsuit on technical grounds. The case was said to have been filed after the company launched its S'mores Frapuccino lip gloss in 2019.
According to Courthouse News Service, Starbucks was cleared because the complainant, Balmuccino LLC, waited too long to file the lawsuit in federal court. The latter sued SB for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Still, U.S. District Judge John Chun explained that the case was tossed out because of the lack of jurisdiction over Starbucks since it was filed in a state court in California.
The judge sided with Starbucks after applying Washington state law instead of the more lenient California state law. He referred to the former to answer whether Balmuccino could still go after its claims after the statute of limitations expired.
"Balmuccino draws on California's more forgiving tolling law to argue that declining to toll the statutes of limitations during the pendency of the state-court action is bad public policy," Judge Chun stated. "Balmuccino may have a point that requiring a plaintiff to concurrently file separate actions in two different jurisdictions is inefficient and laborious. Yet this is the tolling policy that Washington has apparently adopted."
He added, "Even assuming that Balmuccino reasonably asserted personal jurisdiction in California at the outset of litigation, Balmuccino was on notice that it might need to file elsewhere at least as of June 2020, prior to the expiration of the limitations periods lessens the force of its policy argument that it would be unfair or redundant to have to concurrently file multiple suits in multiple jurisdictions."
In response to the dismissal of the lawsuit, Reuters reported that Eduardo Martorell, Balmuccino's lawyer, said they think the case was wrongly decided, so they will appeal the decision or re-file the suit in New York. He added that they would not stop fighting until the courts allow Balmuccino to be heard on the merits.
