The record
The Ingham opinion recounted plaintiffs’ trial evidence that internal documents discussed cornstarch as an alternative powder base and used language including “by its very nature does not contain fibers” and “top priority.”
Claim scope
The court’s recounting of plaintiffs’ trial evidence about documents discussing a cornstarch alternative during the 1970s.
What this source does not establish
A verified launch, transition, or discontinuation date; the truth of every recounted document; a product-content finding; scientific causation; or corporate motive.
Limitations
The opinion recounts evidence under the verdict-review standard. Do not infer a product-transition date from this record. Later SEC disclosures about specific commercial transitions are separate records with their own scope.
Source
Published Appellate Opinion Court Recounting — Ingham, No. ED107476, opinion’s recitation of “Plaintiffs’ evidence” on 1970s cornstarch alternative documents; passage beginning “In the 1970s, Defendants addressed several alternative methods”