The lawsuit claims that Defendants jointly manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold BTN+, and in doing so made express and implied warranties that BTN+ would serve as a soybean nutrient and increase soybean yields and that the Class Members relied on those warranties and purchased BTN+ and applied it to soybean crops in 2006. The lawsuit also claims that BTN+ failed to provide any material yield increase, in breach of the warranties made by Defendants.

 

Defendants deny all of the claims of the lawsuit and deny that they did anything wrong. Defendants allege that BTN+ was sold for use in crop year 2006 as a test product, and that no warranties or guarantees of future performance were provided to purchasers as part of that sale. Defendants also claim that the purchasers of BTN+ failed to give any notice of breach of warranty as required by the Uniform Commercial Code before legal recovery can be obtained. Defendants further contend that the proposed Class cannot be certified except for purposes of settlement. Bio Tech also believes certain weather anomalies during the 2006 crop year and/or other factors impacted performance during 2006. Bio Tech also notes that BTN+ continues to be sold today for use on soybeans. Bio Tech enters into this Settlement fully confident in the performance of BTN+ for past, present, and future use on soybeans.

 

The Court is has not expressed any opinion about the merits of any of the issues, claims or defenses that any of the parties have asserted in this lawsuit.