• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании2817
      • Показать ещё
      Разное712
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы374
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации37
      • Показать ещё
      Люди101
      • Показать ещё
      Формат49
      Показатели53
      • Показать ещё
      Издания33
      • Показать ещё
Johnson & Johnson
27 июня, 19:41

5 Biomedical Stocks That Are Expected To Surge

With the promise of regulatory reform on the horizon, investors have been excited about the biomedical space throughout the year. If you want to add some to your portfolio, check out these 5 biomedical stocks that are primed to skyrocket here.

27 июня, 17:03

Gilead's (GILD) HCV Drug Application Accepted in the EU

Gilead Sciences, Inc. (GILD) announced that the CHMP has adopted a positive opinion on the company's application for HCV drug Vosevi.

27 июня, 08:00

Сергей Юшко: «Все встали и ушли» – такого не будет»

«Без шуток — о том, что меня прочат в ректоры, я узнал из «БИЗНЕС Online», — говорит официально назначенный накануне и. о. ректора КНИТУ-КХТИ Сергей Юшко. В эксклюзивном интервью нашему изданию, данном по горячим следам назначения, он рассказал, с какими идеями приходит на этот пост, анонсировал серьезное усиление роли президента вуза и вспомнил, как, руководя кафедрой, увольнял преподавателей, разъезжающих на подозрительно шикарных авто.

23 июня, 17:04

Top-Ranked Health Care ETFs to Buy Now

After many twists and turns, the strong momentum has started to build up in the healthcare space, pushing many stocks and ETFs to multi-year highs.

23 июня, 16:00

Healthcare ETF (IYH) Hits New 52-Week High

This healthcare ETF hit a new 52-week high. Are more gains in store for this ETF?

Выбор редакции
23 июня, 14:31

Woody Johnson: Trump picks NFL tycoon as UK ambassador

The scion of the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical giant has known the president-elect for years.

Выбор редакции
23 июня, 14:31

Woody Johnson: Trump picks NFL tycoon as UK ambassador

The scion of the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical giant has known the president-elect for years.

22 июня, 22:35

Основные фондовые индексы США в последний час торгов демонстрируют позитивную динамику:

Большинство компонентов индекса DOW в плюсе (17 из 30). Больше остальных упали акции The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS, -0.93%). Лидером роста являются акции Johnson & Johnson (JNJ, +1.07%). Большинство секторов индекса S&P в плюсе. Лидер роста - сектор здравоохранения (+1.4%). Больше всего упал сектор конгломератов (-0.1%). Информационно-аналитический отдел TeleTradeИсточник: FxTeam

22 июня, 17:36

Here's Why Geron (GERN) is a Good Stock to Invest in Now

Geron Corporation (GERN) is developing anti-cancer therapies based on telomerase inhibitors.

22 июня, 00:18

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Massive Talc Litigation Against J&J

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Johnson & Johnson is seizing upon a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from Monday limiting where injury lawsuits can be filed to fight off claims it failed to warn women that talcum powder could cause ovarian cancer. New Jersey-based J&J has been battling a series of lawsuits over its talc-based products, including Johnson’s Baby Powder, brought by around 5,950 women and their families. The company denies any link between talc and cancer. A fifth of the plaintiffs have cases pending in state court in St. Louis, where juries in four trials have hit J&J and a talc supplier with $307 million in verdicts. Those four cases and most of the others on the St. Louis docket involve out-of-state plaintiffs suing an out-of-state company. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in a case involving Bristol-Myers Squibb Co that state courts cannot hear claims against companies that are not based in the state when the alleged injuries did not occur there. The ruling immediately led a St. Louis judge at J&J’s urging to declare a mistrial in the latest talc case, in which two of the three women at issue were from out of state. It also could imperil prior verdicts and cases that have yet to go to trial. “We believe the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Bristol-Myers Squibb matter requires reversal of the talc cases that are currently under appeal in St. Louis,” J&J said in a statement. The question of where such lawsuits can be filed has been the subject of fierce debate. The business community has argued plaintiffs should not be allowed to shop around for the most favorable court to bring lawsuits, while injured parties claim corporations are trying to deny them access to justice. Along with talc cases, large-scale litigation alleging injuries from Bayer AG’s Essure birth control device in Missouri and California and GlaxoSmithKline’s antidepressant Paxil in California and Illinois are examples of other cases where defendants could utilize the Supreme Court decision. Although he declared a mistrial on Monday, St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison left the door open for the plaintiffs to argue they still have jurisdiction. Plaintiffs lawyer Ted Meadows said he would argue the St. Louis court still had jurisdiction based on a Missouri-based bottler J&J used to package its talc products, which he said would create a sufficient connection to the state. “It’s very disappointing to mistry a case because the Supreme Court changed the rules on us,” said Meadows. The lawsuit decided by the high court on Monday involved claims against Bristol-Myers and California-based drug distributor McKesson Corp by 86 California residents and 575 non-Californians over the blood thinner Plavix. Beyond Monday’s mistrial, the Supreme Court’s ruling could bolster a pending appeal by J&J of a $72 million verdict in favor of the family of Alabama resident Jacqueline Fox, who died in 2015. A Missouri appeals court had said in May it would wait until the Supreme Court issued its decision to decide the appeal. J&J has won only one of the five trials so far in Missouri. It previously sought to move talc cases out of St. Louis, but the Missouri Supreme Court in January denied its bid. The company has also cast the St. Louis court as overly plaintiff-friendly and has allowed evidence linking talc to cancer that was rejected by a New Jersey state court judge overseeing over 200 talc cases. The plaintiffs are appealing. The talc verdicts against J&J led the business-friendly American Tort Reform Association last year to declare the St. Louis state court the nation’s top “Judicial Hellhole.” Now J&J could try to use the Supreme Court ruling to dismiss many of the cases it faces in Missouri, according to legal experts. Corporations facing a large volume of cases in venues chosen by plaintiffs will likely cite the Supreme Court to try to dismiss those claims, said Rusty Perdew, a defense lawyer at the law firm Locke Lord. “You have a bunch of defendants who can go back and say, ‘Judge, you got that wrong and you’re going to have to dismiss claims by all those plaintiffs,’” he said. (This story was corrected to show that Perdew was speaking about corporations in general, not J&J, in next-to-last paragraph.)   (Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Tom Brown and Bill Trott) -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

21 июня, 19:59

Fitch Sees Fastest Global Growth in 10 Years: ETFs To Buy

Credit rating agency Fitch expects the global growth to reach 2.9% in 2017 and 3.1% in 2018.

21 июня, 17:52

Shire's (SHPG) ADHD Drug Mydayis Receives Approval in US

Shire Plc (SHPG) announced that the FDA has approved its new attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drug, Mydayis (mixed salts of a single-entity amphetamine product) in patients 13 years and older

21 июня, 16:30

Zacks.com featured highlights: Johnson & Johnson, NantKwest, Delek US Holdings, Abbot Labs and Winnebago

Zacks.com featured highlights: Johnson & Johnson, NantKwest, Delek US Holdings, Abbot Labs and Winnebago

Выбор редакции
21 июня, 02:40

U.S. Supreme Court ruling threatens massive talc litigation against J&J

(Reuters) - Johnson & Johnson is seizing upon a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from Monday limiting where injury lawsuits can be filed to fight off claims it failed to warn women that talcum powder could cause ovarian cancer.

21 июня, 00:37

How to Uncover Institutional Buying

How to Uncover Institutional Buying

20 июня, 22:34

A Big Oil-Backed GOP Proposal For A Carbon Tax Is Just As Suspect As It Sounds

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); In February, a cadre of Republican elder statesmen unveiled their plan to put a tax on carbon emissions, arguing that “mounting evidence of climate change is growing too strong to ignore.” That plan got the backing of Big Oil on Tuesday, as Exxon Mobil Corp., BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Total announced a new campaign to push Congress to consider passing a carbon tax. Those companies are getting a lot of credit for supporting a carbon tax. But they also have a record of doing so when it seems highly unlikely that such a policy would pass Congress and get a presidential signature. And the industry has a history of working to undermine plans to price carbon when they do stand a chance of becoming a reality. The Republican-backed carbon tax already has the support of former Treasury Secretary James Baker and former Secretary of Labor George Shultz, who have aligned with business and environmental leaders under the banner of the Climate Leadership Council. Industrial heavyweights, including Johnson & Johnson and General Motors, also have backed the plan. It calls for a $40 per ton tax on emissions, and would phase out much of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory authority over planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Revenue from the tax would be returned to taxpayers in the form of quarterly dividends administered through the Social Security Administration. “We have been encouraged by the proposal put forth by the Climate Leadership Council as it aligns closely with our longstanding principles,” Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods said in a statement on Tuesday. “We are pleased to support the Council as a Founding Member and work constructively to support their policy development process.” On the face of it, support from a group that includes Exxon Mobil may seem like a coup for those seeking to avert catastrophic climate change. After all, the company spent decades funding a disinformation campaign to discredit climate science, and remains so politically influential its last chief executive, Rex Tillerson, became the secretary of state without any diplomatic experience. Climate change has become impossible to deny outright, and an overwhelming majority of Americans on both ends of the political spectrum want lawmakers to do something about it. At this point, regulations to limit emissions from burning fossil fuels, industrial farming and deforestation seem inevitable. Big polluters are likely to face fewer restrictions and have a bigger say under a plan sanctioned by business-friendly Republicans.  “What seems interesting about today’s announcement is Exxon Mobil,” Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the libertarian think tank Niskanen Center, told HuffPost by phone. “As far as I can tell, this is the first time they’ve been publicly attached to such a specific set of policy ideas.”   “We’ve known for a while that Exxon is supportive of carbon pricing as a mechanism,” he added. “They add a weight that, along with all these other large business leaders, could provide political cover for Republicans to embrace carbon pricing.” But the oil industry has publicly supported curbing planet-warming emissions for over a decade while quietly working to sabotage any such legislation ― both by funding the campaigns of climate change deniers and torpedoing aggressive policy proposals. In June 2009, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to create a cap-and-trade system, which would allow companies to buy and sell credits to pollute. Much of the oil industry came out hard against the legislation: The American Petroleum Institute launched a PR campaign insisting a cap-and-trade market would put regular Americans out of work en masse, a compelling message at any time, but particularly in the midst of the Great Recession. Exxon Mobil, a member of API, ramped up its own lobbying, spending a total that year of $27.4 million ― more than the entire environmental lobby combined, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Other oil giants, such as BP and ConocoPhillips, initially supported cap-and-trade talks, though their influence seems to have largely kneecapped the legislation as they pushed aggressively for compromises on transportation fuel. A year in, they abandoned negotiations.   Tillerson, meanwhile, made a splash in 2009 during deliberations over the cap-and-trade bill by declaring that Exxon Mobil supported a tax on carbon instead ― a first for a company whose public messaging previously dismissed the science behind global warming as nonsense. Some environmental leaders said discussing a carbon tax at that point was “a distraction” from the urgent need to put a cap on carbon emissions. Sure enough, the cap-and-trade bill failed to gain traction in the Senate. In 2015, a number of oil companies advocated for the Paris climate agreement. Exxon Mobil and Shell also prominently urged President Donald Trump not to withdraw the U.S. from the nonbinding deal to cut emissions two years later. But public statements aside, big corporations, including Exxon Mobil, continued funding the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other powerful trade associations that lobbied for the new administration to leave the accord and pull back on climate action. A carbon tax has an uphill climb to gain support among the most hard-line fossil fuel allies in Congress. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a vehement climate change denier, leads the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and is up for re-election next year. Trump, who dismissed climate change as a hoax during his campaign, has aggressively rolled back environmental regulations and moved to bolster fossil fuel use and production. He has indicated he wouldn’t push for a carbon tax. Myron Ebell, a once-fringe climate change denier who oversaw Trump’s EPA transition team, said the proposal is, for now, “dead on arrival.” He rejected the tax plan as tilted in favor of urban dwellers who he said require less energy than rural folks.  At least for now it's dead on arrival. Myron Ebell, former Trump adviser “One of the things that is particularly objectionable about the Shultz-Baker carbon tax dividend is it rewards people in highly urban areas who have very non-energy-intensive lives and jobs,” Ebell, who leads climate policy at the Washington, D.C.-based conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, told HuffPost by phone. “So say you’re somebody who commutes to work on the Washington Metro, as I do. I would get a check equal to somebody who has to drive a long way to work every day, who required a four-wheel-drive vehicle because he lives in an area with lots of snow and may have a job that includes heavy hauling, like a plumbing business.” “We should introduce a bill to allow any company that wants to put a carbon tax on itself to do so and send the money to the U.S. Treasury every year,” he added. “Consumers would then have the opportunity to go to an Exxon station and pay more for their gasoline because that would be great, because those consumers who agree there should be a tax would be able to put it on themselves.” Oil prices remain another significant factor in the tax proposal’s viability. A glut, fed in part by the boom in U.S. shale production, has kept prices per barrel below $100 since mid-2014. Prices hovered around $44 per barrel on Tuesday. That’s bad for oil producers, who historically needed prices at $80 to $85 per barrel to break even. Some producers are now breaking even at $50 to $60 prices today, according to data from the firm Rystad Energy cited by The Wall Street Journal. Some companies are even making money on $40 per barrel. Multinational energy giants such as Exxon Mobil and Total can hedge their business enough to remain profitable under a carbon tax, but smaller producers may not be as receptive. Those low prices, however, may mean this is the best time to get voters behind the proposal. “From a political point of view, on any big moves toward carbon pricing ― which will have visible price effects for consumers, drivers and industries that use energy ― the low-price future that we apparently have in front of us might ease the pain of standing up a carbon price,” Majkut said. “It’s easier to do at $2 a gallon than it is at $4.” type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=589b18a3e4b09bd304bef21b,585d6ca1e4b0eb5864863a13,58dc412ae4b05eae031d0199,5922e848e4b094cdba55ba51,5820e0d6e4b0e80b02cbdad0 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

20 июня, 22:34

A Big Oil-Backed GOP Proposal For A Carbon Tax Is Just As Suspect As It Sounds

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); In February, a cadre of Republican elder statesmen unveiled their plan to put a tax on carbon emissions, arguing that “mounting evidence of climate change is growing too strong to ignore.” That plan got the backing of Big Oil on Tuesday, as Exxon Mobil Corp., BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Total announced a new campaign to push Congress to consider passing a carbon tax. Those companies are getting a lot of credit for supporting a carbon tax. But they also have a record of doing so when it seems highly unlikely that such a policy would pass Congress and get a presidential signature. And the industry has a history of working to undermine plans to price carbon when they do stand a chance of becoming a reality. The Republican-backed carbon tax already has the support of former Treasury Secretary James Baker and former Secretary of Labor George Shultz, who have aligned with business and environmental leaders under the banner of the Climate Leadership Council. Industrial heavyweights, including Johnson & Johnson and General Motors, also have backed the plan. It calls for a $40 per ton tax on emissions, and would phase out much of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory authority over planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Revenue from the tax would be returned to taxpayers in the form of quarterly dividends administered through the Social Security Administration. “We have been encouraged by the proposal put forth by the Climate Leadership Council as it aligns closely with our longstanding principles,” Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods said in a statement on Tuesday. “We are pleased to support the Council as a Founding Member and work constructively to support their policy development process.” On the face of it, support from a group that includes Exxon Mobil may seem like a coup for those seeking to avert catastrophic climate change. After all, the company spent decades funding a disinformation campaign to discredit climate science, and remains so politically influential its last chief executive, Rex Tillerson, became the secretary of state without any diplomatic experience. Climate change has become impossible to deny outright, and an overwhelming majority of Americans on both ends of the political spectrum want lawmakers to do something about it. At this point, regulations to limit emissions from burning fossil fuels, industrial farming and deforestation seem inevitable. Big polluters are likely to face fewer restrictions and have a bigger say under a plan sanctioned by business-friendly Republicans.  “What seems interesting about today’s announcement is Exxon Mobil,” Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the libertarian think tank Niskanen Center, told HuffPost by phone. “As far as I can tell, this is the first time they’ve been publicly attached to such a specific set of policy ideas.”   “We’ve known for a while that Exxon is supportive of carbon pricing as a mechanism,” he added. “They add a weight that, along with all these other large business leaders, could provide political cover for Republicans to embrace carbon pricing.” But the oil industry has publicly supported curbing planet-warming emissions for over a decade while quietly working to sabotage any such legislation ― both by funding the campaigns of climate change deniers and torpedoing aggressive policy proposals. In June 2009, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to create a cap-and-trade system, which would allow companies to buy and sell credits to pollute. Much of the oil industry came out hard against the legislation: The American Petroleum Institute launched a PR campaign insisting a cap-and-trade market would put regular Americans out of work en masse, a compelling message at any time, but particularly in the midst of the Great Recession. Exxon Mobil, a member of API, ramped up its own lobbying, spending a total that year of $27.4 million ― more than the entire environmental lobby combined, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Other oil giants, such as BP and ConocoPhillips, initially supported cap-and-trade talks, though their influence seems to have largely kneecapped the legislation as they pushed aggressively for compromises on transportation fuel. A year in, they abandoned negotiations.   Tillerson, meanwhile, made a splash in 2009 during deliberations over the cap-and-trade bill by declaring that Exxon Mobil supported a tax on carbon instead ― a first for a company whose public messaging previously dismissed the science behind global warming as nonsense. Some environmental leaders said discussing a carbon tax at that point was “a distraction” from the urgent need to put a cap on carbon emissions. Sure enough, the cap-and-trade bill failed to gain traction in the Senate. In 2015, a number of oil companies advocated for the Paris climate agreement. Exxon Mobil and Shell also prominently urged President Donald Trump not to withdraw the U.S. from the nonbinding deal to cut emissions two years later. But public statements aside, big corporations, including Exxon Mobil, continued funding the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other powerful trade associations that lobbied for the new administration to leave the accord and pull back on climate action. A carbon tax has an uphill climb to gain support among the most hard-line fossil fuel allies in Congress. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a vehement climate change denier, leads the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and is up for re-election next year. Trump, who dismissed climate change as a hoax during his campaign, has aggressively rolled back environmental regulations and moved to bolster fossil fuel use and production. He has indicated he wouldn’t push for a carbon tax. Myron Ebell, a once-fringe climate change denier who oversaw Trump’s EPA transition team, said the proposal is, for now, “dead on arrival.” He rejected the tax plan as tilted in favor of urban dwellers who he said require less energy than rural folks.  At least for now it's dead on arrival. Myron Ebell, former Trump adviser “One of the things that is particularly objectionable about the Shultz-Baker carbon tax dividend is it rewards people in highly urban areas who have very non-energy-intensive lives and jobs,” Ebell, who leads climate policy at the Washington, D.C.-based conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, told HuffPost by phone. “So say you’re somebody who commutes to work on the Washington Metro, as I do. I would get a check equal to somebody who has to drive a long way to work every day, who required a four-wheel-drive vehicle because he lives in an area with lots of snow and may have a job that includes heavy hauling, like a plumbing business.” “We should introduce a bill to allow any company that wants to put a carbon tax on itself to do so and send the money to the U.S. Treasury every year,” he added. “Consumers would then have the opportunity to go to an Exxon station and pay more for their gasoline because that would be great, because those consumers who agree there should be a tax would be able to put it on themselves.” Oil prices remain another significant factor in the tax proposal’s viability. A glut, fed in part by the boom in U.S. shale production, has kept prices per barrel below $100 since mid-2014. Prices hovered around $44 per barrel on Tuesday. That’s bad for oil producers, who historically needed prices at $80 to $85 per barrel to break even. Some producers are now breaking even at $50 to $60 prices today, according to data from the firm Rystad Energy cited by The Wall Street Journal. Some companies are even making money on $40 per barrel. Multinational energy giants such as Exxon Mobil and Total can hedge their business enough to remain profitable under a carbon tax, but smaller producers may not be as receptive. Those low prices, however, may mean this is the best time to get voters behind the proposal. “From a political point of view, on any big moves toward carbon pricing ― which will have visible price effects for consumers, drivers and industries that use energy ― the low-price future that we apparently have in front of us might ease the pain of standing up a carbon price,” Majkut said. “It’s easier to do at $2 a gallon than it is at $4.” type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=589b18a3e4b09bd304bef21b,585d6ca1e4b0eb5864863a13,58dc412ae4b05eae031d0199,5922e848e4b094cdba55ba51,5820e0d6e4b0e80b02cbdad0 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

20 июня, 18:28

J&J-AbbVie's Imbruvica Positive in Follow-up Lymphoma Study

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) announced a three-year follow-up data from a late stage study, evaluating its cancer drug Imbruvica against Pfizer's Torisel for treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

19 июня, 19:33

США объявили войну фармкомпаниям

Наркоторговцам в США объявлена война еще с 80-х гг., в результате чего правоохранительные органы крайне жестко работают с представителями этой отрасли криминального мира.

19 июня, 19:33

США объявили войну фармкомпаниям

Наркоторговцам в США объявлена война еще с 80-х годов, в результате чего правоохранительные органы крайне жестко работают с представителями этой отрасли криминального мира.