Sec. 47-250. Meetings. Rules. (a) The following requirements apply to unit owner meetings:
(1) An association shall hold a meeting of unit owners annually at a time, date and place stated in or fixed in accordance with the bylaws;
(2) An association shall hold a special meeting of unit owners if its president, a majority of the executive board, or unit owners having at least twenty per cent, or any lower percentage specified in the bylaws, of the votes in the association request that the secretary call the meeting. If the association does not notify unit owners of a special meeting within fifteen days after the requisite number or percentage of unit owners request the secretary to do so, the requesting members may directly notify the unit owners of the meeting. Only matters described in the meeting notice required by subdivision (3) of this subsection may be considered at a special meeting;
(3) An association shall notify unit owners of the time, date and place of each annual and special meeting of unit owners not less than ten days or more than sixty days before the meeting date. Notice may be by any means described in section 47-261c. The notice of any meeting shall state the time, date and place of the meeting and the items on the agenda, including (A) a statement of the general nature of any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws, (B) any budget changes, and (C) any proposal to remove an officer or member of the executive board;
(4) Unit owners shall be given a reasonable opportunity at any meeting to comment regarding any matter affecting the common interest community or the association; and
(5) The declaration or bylaws may allow for meetings of unit owners to be conducted by telephonic, video or other conferencing process if the alternative process is consistent with subdivision (7) of subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The following requirements apply to meetings of the executive board and committees of the association authorized to act for the association:
(1) Meetings shall be open to the unit owners and to a representative designated by any unit owner except during executive sessions. The executive board and those committees may hold an executive session only during a regular or special meeting of the board or a committee. No final vote or action may be taken during an executive session. An executive session may be held only to: (A) Consult with the association’s attorney concerning legal matters; (B) discuss existing or potential litigation or mediation, arbitration or administrative proceedings; (C) discuss labor or personnel matters; (D) discuss contracts, leases and other commercial transactions to purchase or provide goods or services currently being negotiated, including the review of bids or proposals, if premature general knowledge of those matters would place the association at a disadvantage; or (E) prevent public knowledge of the matter to be discussed if the executive board or committee determines that public knowledge would violate the privacy of any person.
(2) For purposes of this section, a gathering of board members at which the board members do not conduct association business is not a meeting of the executive board. The executive board and its members may not use incidental or social gatherings of board members or any other method to evade the open meeting requirements of this section.
(3) Notwithstanding any actions taken by unanimous consent pursuant to subdivision (8) or (9) of this subsection, during and after the period of declarant control, the executive board shall meet at least two times a year at the common interest community or at a place convenient to the community. Those meetings, and after termination of the period of declarant control, all executive board meetings, shall be at the common interest community or at a place convenient to the community unless the bylaws are amended to vary the location of those meetings.
(4) At each executive board meeting, the executive board shall provide a reasonable opportunity for unit owners to comment regarding any matter affecting the common interest community and the association.
(5) Unless the meeting is included in a schedule given to the unit owners or the meeting is called to deal with an emergency, the secretary or other officer specified in the bylaws shall give notice of each executive board meeting to each board member and to the unit owners. The notice shall be given at least five days before the meeting and shall state the time, date, place and agenda of the meeting, except that notice of a meeting called to adopt, amend or repeal a rule shall be given in accordance with subsection (a) of section 47-261b. If notice of the meeting is included in a schedule given to the unit owners, the secretary or other officer specified in the bylaws shall make available an agenda for such meeting to each board member and to the unit owners not later than forty-eight hours prior to the meeting.
(6) If any materials are distributed to the executive board before the meeting, the executive board at the same time shall make copies of those materials reasonably available to unit owners, except that the board need not make available copies of unapproved minutes or materials that are to be considered in executive session.
(7) Unless prohibited by the declaration or bylaws, the executive board may meet by telephonic, video or other conferencing process if (A) the meeting notice states the conferencing process to be used and provides information explaining how unit owners may participate in the conference directly or by meeting at a central location or conference connection; and (B) the process provides all unit owners the opportunity to hear or perceive the discussion and offer comments as provided in subdivision (4) of this subsection.
(8) The minutes of all executive board meetings shall contain a record of how each board member cast his or her vote on any final action proposed to be taken by the executive board, unless such action was approved either by unanimous consent of the board members or without objection by any board member.
(9) Instead of meeting, the executive board may act by unanimous consent as documented in a record authenticated by all its members. The secretary promptly shall give notice to all unit owners of any action taken by unanimous consent.
(10) Even if an action by the executive board is not in compliance with this section, it is valid unless set aside by a court. A challenge to the validity of an action of the executive board for failure to comply with this section may not be brought more than sixty days after the minutes of the executive board of the meeting at which the action was taken are approved or the record of that action is distributed to unit owners, whichever is later.
(c) Meetings of the association shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Roberts’ Rules of Order Newly Revised unless (1) the declaration, bylaws or other law otherwise provides, or (2) two-thirds of the votes allocated to owners present at the meeting are cast to suspend those rules.
New HOA Rules In Conn Helps Owners Learn What Their Associations Are Up To
July 24, 2010
By George Gombossy
For an estimated 250,000 condominium owners in Connecticut, this month will be remembered as the watershed time when unprecedented legal protections went into effect.
Thanks to legislation adopted by the General Assembly and signed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, the playing field – according to state Consumer Protection Commissioner Jerry Farrell Jr. – for condo boards and unit owners has been somewhat leveled.
While the traditional media has for the most part not picked up on this huge story, the unprecedented new rights for condo owners in Connecticut went into effect July 1. It gives them the right to know when their boards of associations meet, to attend the meetings, to be able to speak up and to get access to documents that before could simply be denied.
“It actually gives owners a leg up,” Farrell said. As an attorney who practiced real estate law prior to becoming consumer protection chief, Farrell spent many hours counseling potential condo owners about the risks they faced and their lack of rights.
William W. Ward, a Stamford attorney who specializes in condo law, agrees with Farrell that the updated condo act provides new protection to condo owners, but foresees more work and stress for condo associations that must abide by the rules, some of which will cost them money and some of which he says are not defined clearly.
As anyone who has ever purchased a condo knows, there is no such thing as “carefree” condo living.
While much of the work – especially outside jobs like the lawn care and plowing – is handled for condo owners, you give up many rights when you join an association.
I have had dozens of requests for help from condo owners who tell me that their boards are secretive, that they award contracts to friends and relatives of board members, arbitrarily enforce rules, refuse to provide financial documents, meet in secret, and harass those who oppose them.
Then there are the unit owners with too much time on their hands, or who hate animals, and enjoy making life miserable for those who violate the most meaningless rules. They are often referred to as “condo Nazis.”
The major changes in the condo laws were actually signed by Gov. Rell a year ago, but because there were so many new provisions, most only went into effect on July 1.
Besides requiring all boards to inform unit owners of all meetings, permit unit owners to speak at the meetings, and to provide financial or otherwise important documents, the legislation also makes it easier for associations to borrow money without having to track down every unit owner, and it makes it easier for associations at condos built before 1984 to borrow money based on future income.
One of the more interesting aspects of the amended Act is a requirement that all material provided to board members must be made “reasonably available” to unit owners, said Ward, who represents 120 condo associations in complexes ranging from four to 237 units.
In a lengthy analysis of the revisions (available in full on CtWatchdog.com), Ward notes that these board member packets normally contain sensitive and confidential information, which the act does not give specific guidance for.
For example, Ward said unit owners have a right to know that some other owners are behind on their monthly maintenance fees, but they don’t have a right to know the identities of those who are late payers.
There are also legal matters, complaints, and contract negotiations that the board would not want to be made public.
Then there is the question of how much to charge for making copies of documents and who would provide the documents, especially in the case of small associations.
But looking at the larger picture, Ward said the act is clear in its intent to require more transparency and give unit owners the right to know what is happening in their association.
And while the changes in this act will not solve all condo issues, the more information that an owner or prospective owner has available, the better decisions they can make.
FULL ANALYSIS OF CONDO ACT
ACKERLY & WARD
William W. Ward
July 1, 2010 Revisions to the Connecticut Condominium Statutes
On July 8, 2009 Governor Rell signed the most comprehensive amendments to the condominium statutes, since the statutes were originally enacted. The amendments affect everyone living in shared communities, condominiums, cooperatives, and planned unit developments. Due to the number of revisions, most were not effective until July 1, 2010.
Two provisions were effective upon passage. The first removed hurdles facing Associations seeking mortgagee approval for specific actions such as amending Bylaws and Declarations. If a mortgagee does not respond within forty-five (45) days after being notified of a proposed action in a record, the mortgagee’s consent is granted automatically.
The second change affected Associations created before 1984, which would not have the right to obtain a loan without first amending their documents. Pre-1984 Associations now have the right to pledge their future income to secure a loan unless the Declaration specifically prohibits such an assignment.
The legislative intent behind many of the changes is to create transparency in the affairs of Associations. The legislature wants Unit Owners to be able to offer opinions as to issues facing their communities. Prior to the legislation, owners often were unable to obtain information concerning Association affairs either through uncertainty in their documents or under the applicable statutes.
The new amendments require that every Board meeting be “open”. Every Unit Owner is now allowed to attend every Board meeting. A Board meeting cannot be held without a
portion of the meeting being allocated for comments by Unit Owners on any issue affecting the community. The Board must send notice and an agenda for each Board meeting to all Unit Owners at least five (5) days prior to the meeting. A Unit Owner is allowed to send an agent or representative to attend the Board meeting in his place. During Unit Owner participation Unit Owners are allowed to speak “comment regarding any matter affecting the Common Interest Community and the Association.” Finally, all materials provided to Board members for the meeting must be made “reasonably available” to Unit Owners.
That last requirement will require significant changes in current practices since the management package often contains confidential information, which cannot be shared with Unit Owners. Therefore, two (2) different management packages will need to be prepared. One will be for Board members only and contain the confidential information. The second package – to be made reasonably available to Unit Owners – must be redacted to remove any confidential or private information such as Unit Owners delinquencies, information concerning on going litigation, negotiation of commercial contracts, or anything else to be reviewed in Executive Session. The record-keeping statute protects those records, which must be kept in confidence.
The list of items, which should be considered in an Executive Session include consultation with legal counsel concerning legal matters, discussion of existing litigation or potential litigation or mediation, arbitration, or administrative proceedings; labor or personnel matters; contracts, leases, or other commercial transactions being negotiated, including the review of bids or proposals, if premature general knowledge of these matters placed the Association at a disadvantage; and to prevent public knowledge of any matter that the Board or committee determines would violate the privacy of any person. My opinion is that this provision requires that all hearings for infractions or violations of the condominium documents should be held in Executive Session. No final vote or action may be taken during Executive Session; therefore, the Board must reconvene into open session and vote on the record.
The Board meetings may now be held by phone, video, or other electronic methods, however, Boards must ensure Unit Owners are able to participate, hear everything discussed, and have the ability to comment – at least during the public participation period.
The legislation also prevents Unit Owners from claiming a Board’s action was illegal unless the Unit Owner challenges the action in Court within sixty (60) days of the approved minutes of the Board meeting being distributed to Unit Owners.
The above does not change the Board’s ability to act by unanimous consent provided the consent is documented into a written record, authenticated by all members, and promptly provided to all Unit Owners. The above rules do apply, however, to any committee meeting if the committee is authorized to act on behalf of the Association.
Many of the same changes apply to Unit Owner meetings. There must be a period for Unit Owner comment. Electronic notices for all meetings are now legal. The notice of a Unit Owner meeting must contain a statement of the general nature of any proposed amendments. Telephone, video, or any other conferencing processes are now allowed for owner meetings. Special meetings of the owners may now be called by the President, majority of the Executive Board, or Unit Owners having at least twenty percent (20%) of the voting right if the Association fails to call or notice a special meeting within fifteen (15) days after receipt of a petition by the secretary requesting the special meeting. The only business allowed to be transacted at the special meeting is business specified in the
The Amendment process has been modified slightly. Post-1984 condominiums are now allowed to reduce the vote required to amend its Declaration from the traditional two-thirds (2/3) to not less then a majority. It also allows specific amendments to be approved by vote of Unit Owners or Units in a specified group affected by the Amendment, rather than approval by the entire community. It also allows use restrictions to be approved by eighty percent (80%) of the affected Units rather than the entire community.
Two (2) significant changes involve removal of Board Members. A majority of Unit Owners at an Owner’s Meeting may now remove a member of the Board provided that the proposed removal was in the notice of the meeting. In addition, Robert’s Rules of Order apply to all owner’s meetings unless the Declaration or Bylaws provide otherwise or two-thirds (2/3) of the votes allocated to owners present at the meeting vote to suspend those rules.
Directed or undirected proxy now allows balloting in person at a meeting, or. No owner may vote more then fifteen percent (15%) of the vote in the Association with undirected proxies. Voting is also allowed without a meeting either electronically or by paper ballot. If the voting is by ballot, the ballot must set forth each proposed action or office to be filled and provide an opportunity to vote for or against the action or the candidate for office. The ballots must also indicate the responses need to meet quorum requirements, state the percentage of votes necessary to approve each matter, specify the time and date which the ballot must be delivered to the Association to be counted, and a deadline for and manner by which Unit Owners wishing to deliver information to all Unit Owners regarding the subject of the vote may do so.
Possibly the most controversial, and significant, changes to the act involve insurance. All Associations must now purchase fidelity insurance for members of the Board of Directors, which covers losses from theft, embezzlement, burglary, etc. The second major change makes it mandatory for the master policy to cover all improvements and betterments to the units rather than covering only the original developer-installed components of the Unit. Associations can “opt-out” from this provision, but it requires that the Association amend the Declaration, create an inventory of the developer-installed components, distribute that list annually to every Unit Owner, and include that list in all Resale Certificates. The third major insurance amendment allows the Association to assess the deductible, or any unreimbursed loss for damage, which occurs as a result of “willful misconduct”, gross negligence, or violation of written maintenance standards against the offending Unit Owner.
RULEMAKING AND ENFORCEMENT
The definition of a Rule is expanded to cover any policy, guideline, restriction, procedure, regulation, or maintenance standard. They must be consistent with the condominium documents and Connecticut Law. They cannot be arbitrary and capricious and must be within the scope of authority of the Board to adopt and must be adopted in conformity with Unit Owner’s right to Notice and Comment.
Boards will now have greater discretion in determining whether to enforce a specific Rule. The Board will not be guilty of selective enforcement or discriminatory enforcement if the Board determines that its legal position does not justify action, the covenant, restriction, or rule being violated is, or is likely to be, construed to be inconsistent with law; the violation is not so material that it is objectionable to a reasonable person, or to justify the cost of enforcement; or it is not in the best interest of the Association to pursue an enforcement action. This will allow Boards to make a case-by-case determination of the merits of enforcement regardless of past practices of the Board.
After Notice and Hearing the Board may suspend the rights or privilege of a Unit Owner, who fails to pay assessments to utilize Common Areas as recreational facilities. Prior to initiating a collection action against a delinquent Unit Owner, the Unit Owner must be delinquent in am amount equal to two (2) months of common charges, the Board must first make a demand in a record for payment, and foreclosure cannot be initiated unless the Board votes to approve the foreclosure or there is an adopted collection policy authorizing foreclosure upon the delinquency being an amount equal to two (2) months of common charges or more. The Association’s statutory lien was extended from two (2) to three (3) years, which allows the Board to delay foreclosure if so desired. Boards are now given much greater discretion in determining when, or if, it is appropriate to take enforcement action for violations.
The number of disputes between Unit Owners and the Board concerning inspection of records should be greatly reduced with the passage of these amendments. For the first time a detailed list of required records subject to inspection are included in the statute. The list includes detailed records of receipts and expenditures; other appropriate accounting records; approved minutes of all owner and Board meetings; a record of all actions taken without a Board meeting; a record of all actions taken by committees in lieu of Board action; names and addresses of all owners in alphabetical order along with the voting percentage each owner is entitled to cast; original or restated organizational documents; bylaws, amendments, and current rules; all financial statements and tax returns for three (3) years; names and addresses of Board members and officers; current annual report filed with the Secretary of State; financial and other records required to comply with the Resale Certificate requirements; all current contracts; records of approvals or denials for request for design or architectural approval from owners; and ballots, proxies, and other voting records for one (1) year.
All of these records can be copied or examined by either an owner or an agent upon five (5) days notice reasonably identifying the specific records requested. The Board may establish a policy requiring the Unit Owners to pay a reasonable charge for the copies and supervision of the inspection. The statute details, which must be withheld as confidential or privileged. It also specifically states the Association is not obligated to compile or synthesize the information that prohibits the use of the information for any commercial purposes.
The legislation expanded the information now required to be included in the Resale Certificate. Court and administrative proceedings in which the Association is a party, other then non-foreclosure collections, must be disclosed. The Board must disclose pending suits, the number of the Units sixty (60) or more days delinquent on a specified date within sixty (60) days of the date of the certificate, the number of foreclosures brought against owners by the Association in the last twelve (12) months, number of foreclosures pending within sixty (60) days of the resale requirement, all maintenance standards, which an owner can be responsible for violating, and a list of original components if the master policy excludes improvements and betterments coverage. The fee for the Resale Certificate is now $125.00 plus either 0.05 cents per page for photocopies or $10.00 for an electronic copy.
Associations established after 1984 must now allow a “cooling off” period before suing for construction defects. Associations must give a forty-five (45) day notice to the developer. During that time the developer has the right to propose a repair plan before the Association can file a lawsuit. All applicable statutes of limitation are tolled during the opportunity to cure period as long as the plan is being implemented in good faith.
BUDGETS AND ASSESSMENTS
All Association budgets now are subject to ratification. Thirty (30) days before adopting the annual budget the Board must give a summary to Unit Owners, which explains how reserves are calculated and funded, and setting a date within ten to sixty (10-60) days for approval. At the owner’s meeting the budget is approved unless a majority of the Association’s votes reject the budget. Please note it is a majority vote of the entire Association, not a majority at those present at the meeting. Special assessments follow the same ratification process if individually, or cumulatively, the special assessment exceeds fifteen (15%) percent of the budget within any budget year. It does allow emergency special assessments upon two-thirds (2/3) approval of the Board, but notice must be provided promptly to the Unit Owners and the funds are limited to use for the item approved.
The massive changes will affect every Community Association in Connecticut. All Associations must or should adopt a plan to educate themselves and implement the amendments. A Resale Certificate must be revised, collection and inspection policies should be established, maintenance standards need to be adopted, recordkeeping procedures should be reviewed, procedures should be adopted to ensure the confidentiality and privacy of the records due to the increase access given to Unit Owners, and meeting policies should be established to govern the method and conduct of Unit Owners in the open meetings.
Shared with Woodridge Lake in Documents
In closed (not legal) meetings, the WLPOA Board has decided to cut back on the number of concerts at the beach. The membership has already approved the budget for the concerts, but the Board has since made the decision to do something different. They have not communicated this change to the Arts Committee nor to the Finance Committee who developed the budget.
We need to stop this Board from having meetings in private to make decisions which impact our community. According to CT law, these decisions need to be before the community. They need to be made at public meetings so that members know what is going on and have input in the decisions. The vote by the Board must be public and each board member’s vote public.
This is a community. We have to work together. We do not need a board making decisions behind our backs.
Pesticides Tied to Childhood Cancers
By Nicholas Bakalar
September 21, 2015 1:01 pm September 21, 2015 New York Times
Childhood exposure to indoor insecticides is associated with an increased risk for certain childhood cancers, a new study has found.
Researchers reviewed 16 studies of children exposed to indoor pesticides, including professional pest control services, indoor flea foggers, flea and tick pet collars, and various ready-to-use roach and ant sprays. The analysis, in Pediatrics, included 7,400 cancer cases matched with 9,437 healthy control subjects.
Exposure to indoor, but not outdoor, residential insecticides was associated with a 47 percent increased risk for childhood leukemia and a 43 percent increased risk for childhood lymphomas. Outdoor pesticides used as weed killers were associated with a 26 percent increased risk for brain tumors.
The authors acknowledge that the small number of studies included in the review is a major weakness of the analysis, and emphasize that these are increases in the relative risks for diseases that are not common to begin with.
“The incidence of childhood leukemia and lymphoma has increased in recent years, and that prompted us to look at this issue,” said the senior author, Chensheng Lu, an associate professor of environmental exposure biology at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. “But the risks can be managed as long as parents think, before using pesticides, about better ways to make a house pest-proof or pest-free. That’s a far more important message.”
“A LAKE IS NOT A SWIMMING POOL”
FOR YEARS WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THIS PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE IS SAFE. LAST YEAR, THE WORLD HEALTH GROUP (WHO) AND HEALTH CANADA DECLARED THIS PESTICIDE AS UNSAFE. NOW THE EPA HAS COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. WHY WOULD WE CONSIDER USING PESTIDES/HERBICIDES AT WOODRIDGE LAKE WHEN OVER TIME IT IS DISCOVERED THAT ALL PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES HAVE SERIOUS HEALTH IMPACTS.
E.P.A. Revokes Approval of New Dow Herbicide for G.M.O. Crops
By ANDREW POLLACKNOV. 25, 2015, New York Times
The agency’s decision could delay the introduction of corn, soybeans and cotton developed by Dow Chemical to be resistant to the herbicide 2,4-D. But Dow said it did not anticipate a significant delay.
In a court filing on Tuesday, the E.P.A. said it had discovered new information suggesting that the herbicide, which Dow calls Enlist Duo, could be more toxic than previously believed.
“E.P.A. can no longer be confident that Enlist Duo will not cause risks of concern to nontarget organisms, including those listed as endangered, when used according to the approved label,” the agency said in its filing to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.
Most of the corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the United States are genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, also known by the brand name Roundup. That allows farmers to spray the chemical on their fields to kill weeds without hurting their crops.
But because of overuse of glyphosate, many weeds have evolved to be resistant to it, so that strategy does not work so well any more. Dow’s new crops, which are resistant to both glyphosate and the older herbicide 2,4-D, were eagerly awaited by some farmers, who would be able to spray 2,4-D over their crops to kill weeds that are not killed by glyphosate alone.
“There’s been a lot of optimism around this, particularly in light of the fact that we have widespread resistance we’re dealing with,” said Jason Norsworthy, a professor of weed science at the University of Arkansas. He said farmers were calling him on Wednesday worried that introduction of the technology would now be delayed.
But 2,4-D is prone to drifting, and some vegetable farmers in the Midwest worried that the chemical would drift and kill their crops, which would not be engineered to withstand it. To assuage those concerns, Dow developed Enlist Duo, which contains a new formulation of 2,4-D that is less prone to drifting. It also contains glyphosate.
Groups opposed to genetically modified crops hailed the E.P.A.’s decision. “This is a roadblock to the entire next generation of corn and soy in this country,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety.
But Dow said in a statement that the concerns of the E.P.A. could be resolved in time for the 2016 growing season.
“We continue to prepare for commercial sales of Enlist Duo for the 2016 growing season with enthusiastic grower adoption,” said Tim Hassinger, the president of Dow AgroSciences, the company’s agricultural division.
The E.P.A. had approved Enlist Duo in October 2014 for use in six of the top corn-producing states, and in March of this year for use in nine more states. The crops themselves have been approved by the Agriculture Department.
Dow has been planning to begin selling at least the Enlist corn seeds in 2016, pending regulatory approval from China, a major export market. Some environmental and consumer groups, including the Center for Food Safety, had sued the E.P.A., seeking to reverse the approval of Enlist Duo. The E.P.A. filing saying that it would vacate its approval came in this lawsuit. The court must still accept the E.P.A.’s request, and Dow will have a chance to comment before that decision.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
The agency said that it had initially concluded, based on information from Dow, that the two herbicides in Enlist Duo were not synergistic, meaning the toxicity of the two ingredients combined was not greater than expected based on the properties of the individual chemicals.
But the agency said it had found a patent application from Dow claiming just such a synergy. That could mean the measures included in Enlist Duo’s label to prevent damage from herbicide drift were inadequate, the agency said.
“Here, E.P.A. has learned that it did not have all relevant information at the time it made its registration decision,” the agency said in its court filing.
Shares of Dow fell nearly 3 percent on Wednesday. Dow’s chief executive, Andrew N. Liveris, has said that the company is evaluating the future of Dow AgroSciences, meaning it might be sold to another company.
The setback to Enlist Duo could be good news for Monsanto. It is developing its own next generation of crops resistant to dicamba, another old herbicide. Monsanto shares rose 4 cents on Wednesday to $95.60.
This week’s setback is the second recent one for Dow AgroSciences and the E.P.A. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in September the E.P.A.’s approval of a Dow pesticide called sulfoxaflor, after beekeepers and others said the agency had not adequately studied the risk of the chemical to