A U.S. judge permanently barred the Justice Department on Feb. 23 from releasing a prosecutor's report on the criminal case accusing President Donald Trump of unlawfully retaining classified documents following his first term in office. Florida-based U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon found that releasing the report would be a "manifest injustice" to the Republican president and two former associates who were charged alongside him because it would detail substantial allegations of criminal wrongdoing in a case that never reached a jury. Cannon, who Trump appointed to the bench in 2020, dismissed all the charges in 2024. Trump was accused in the case pursued by Special Counsel Jack Smith of illegally storing documents related to U.S. national defense, including the American nuclear program, at his Mar-a-Lago social club and obstructing U.S. government efforts to retrieve the material. Cannon found that Smith had not been lawfully appointed by the Justice Department during Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration. Disclosure of Smith's report "would contravene basic notions of fairness and justice in the process, where no adjudication of guilt has been reached following initiation of criminal charges," Cannon wrote in the Feb. 23 ruling. The order means substantial information about one of the four criminal cases Trump faced in his years out of office may not be disclosed to the public. Trump attorney Kendra Wharton welcomed Cannon's order in a statement, adding that "any and all fruit of Smith's poisonous tree" should "never see the light of day." Trump and his two co-defendants, personal aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago manager Carlos de Oliveira, pleaded not guilty to all charges and argued that the case was a politically motivated abuse of the U.S. legal system. They urged Cannon to bar the release of the report, which details Smith's justification for seeking charges. The Justice Department under Trump supported those arguments, arguing the report was a confidential document. "Judge Cannon's ruling continues a troubling pattern of decisions that shield the president from public scrutiny and place secrecy above the public's right to know," said Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, a government accountability group that has sought disclosure of the report. The Justice Department under Biden dropped an attempt to revive the case against Trump after he won the 2024 election. Special counsels, who are appointed to lead certain politically sensitive investigations, are required to draft reports to the U.S. attorney general detailing their conclusions on whether to seek charges. Shortly before Trump returned to the presidency 13 months ago, the Justice Department released Smith's report detailing his other since-dismissed case against Trump, which accused Trump of plotting to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election. Cannon initially had barred disclosure of the documents case report to Congress, citing the ongoing case against Nauta and de Oliveira. The Justice Department dropped charges against Nauta and de Oliveira after Trump returned to office last year. In the ruling, Cannon also cited concerns about releasing confidential grand jury information and concluded that Smith's drafting of the report circumvented her order finding him unlawfully appointed.

A federal judge on Feb. 18 rejected Live Nation Entertainment's bid to dismiss a lawsuit by the federal government and many U.S. states accusing the company of illegally trying to dominate the live concert industry. The decision by U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian cleared the way for a possible antitrust trial in Manhattan federal court, with jury selection scheduled to begin on March 2. While dismissing some claims, Subramanian said "there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Live Nation has used monopoly power to foreclose competition." Shares of the Beverly Hills, California-based company traded 1.9% lower in after-hours trading following the decision, recouping much of an earlier 7% decline. The May 2024 lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice, 39 states and Washington, D.C. accused Live Nation of monopolizing markets for ticketing, concert-booking, venues and promotions, harming fans as well as performers. Fans and politicians had long urged regulators to reexamine Live Nation's 2010 purchase of Ticketmaster. They intensified their demands after Ticketmaster subjected Taylor Swift fans to high prices and hours-long online queues for her 2022 "Eras" tour. Subramanian said the government plaintiffs can try to prove that Live Nation improperly tied use of its amphitheaters to concert promotion services, and illegally dominated the market for ticketing services to major concert venues. He also said states can try to seek damages for ticket-buying fans, saying it was "reasonably foreseeable" that fans might have been harmed and that Live Nation's antitrust-injury challenge "falls flat." Subramanian dismissed claims related to concert promotions, and concert-booking services at major venues. "With those claims gone, we see no possible basis for breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster," Dan Wall, Live Nation's executive vice president for corporate and regulatory affairs, said in a statement. "We look forward to addressing the remaining claims at trial." In seeking a dismissal, Live Nation denied exercising monopoly power and said there was no evidence its conduct harmed "consumer welfare," such as by raising prices or reducing quality. It also said states lacked legal authority to sue on behalf of fans. Live Nation has separately requested that Subramanian limit next month's trial to claims by the state plaintiffs, and address Justice Department claims separately. The judge has yet to rule on that request.

Bayer said on Feb. 17 its Monsanto unit had reached an agreement worth as much as $7.25 billion to resolve tens of thousands of current and future lawsuits claiming that its Roundup weedkiller caused cancer. The move marks a major step for the German firm, which has spent years tackling legal risks tied to Roundup, acquired as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. The German company said the proposed nationwide settlement, filed on Feb. 17 in state court in St. Louis, Missouri, would establish a long-term claims program funded by capped annual payments over up to 21 years. The company is facing claims over Roundup from approximately 65,000 plaintiffs in U.S. state and federal courts. The plaintiffs say they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other forms of cancer after using the weedkiller, either at home or on the job. Following the announcement, Bayer shares rose as much as 7.7% to reach their highest level since September 12, 2023. "Bayer's move will significantly reduce the legal risks. Although the settlement is very costly, it is to be welcomed as it covers future claims," Ingo Speich of Bayer investor Deka Investment said. Bayer said it expects its provisions and litigation liabilities to rise from 7.8 billion euros ($9.24 billion) to 11.8 billion euros. It anticipates around 5 billion euros in litigation-related payouts in 2026, and now expects negative free cash flow for the year. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AIMED AT HEADING OFF FUTURE LAWSUITS Roundup is among the most widely used weedkillers in the United States. Bayer has said decades of studies have shown Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use. The deal covers the bulk of the lawsuits, but requires a judge's approval and a minimum number of plaintiffs to opt in. It does not require Bayer to admit liability or wrongdoing and allows the company to back out if too many plaintiffs decline to participate. It is also designed to head off future lawsuits, and allows people who can prove they have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and were exposed to Roundup prior to Feb. 17 to file claims to receive a portion of the settlement up to 21 years from now. The agreement was negotiated with Motley Rice, Seeger Weiss and other law firms that would represent a nationwide class of plaintiffs, if the court allows the deal to proceed. Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said on a call with investors and reporters that he is confident the proposed class action settlement will resolve the vast majority of the claims. Attorneys who negotiated on behalf of the plaintiffs said the deal represents the best path forward. Payouts will be determined by a tiered system that considers exposure, age at diagnosis and cancer type. Individuals could receive up to $198,000 or more, according to attorney Eric Holland. The company said it had separately reached confidential settlements to resolve other Roundup cases with specific law firms, although the company would not name the firms or specify the amount of those deals. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR APPEAL The Feb. 17 proposed settlement comes after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in a case that Bayer argues will sharply limit its liability in the litigation. The company said the Supreme Court case, scheduled for oral arguments at the end of April, remains essential to resolving the Roundup litigation. Bayer is arguing that consumers should not be able to sue it under state law for failing to warn that Roundup increases cancer risk because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found no such risk and requires no such warning. Bayer argued that federal law does not allow it to add any warning to the product beyond the EPA-approved label. Markus Manns, portfolio manager at Bayer shareholder Union Investment, cautioned the Feb. 17 proposal was "not yet the breakthrough that many investors had hoped for." "The settlement buys Bayer time, but without a win in the Supreme Court, a new wave of lawsuits could roll over Bayer in a few years," he said. COMPANY PAID OUT $10 BILLION TO SETTLE PREVIOUS LAWSUITS The company had previously paid about $10 billion to settle most of the Roundup lawsuits that were pending as of 2020, but failed to get a settlement then covering future cases. It has had a mixed record with cases that have gone to trial. It prevailed in a series of Roundup trials, but has been hit with large jury awards in the past few years, including a $2.1 billion verdict in a case in the U.S. state of Georgia in March. The verdicts shattered both investor confidence and company hopes that the worst of the Roundup litigation was over, and put pressure on Bayer to find a comprehensive solution to the lawsuits.