Law Firms Challenge Bayer's $7.25 Billion Roundup Settlement

A coalition of 14 law firms representing nearly 20,000 plaintiffs has filed motions to intervene in Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion settlement of Roundup litigation, expressing concerns over the fairness and adequacy of the agreement. The motions, submitted to the St. Louis City Circuit Court in Missouri on February 24, seek both intervention and an extension of the court's preliminary approval process.

The law firms describe the settlement as "unprecedented" and highlight multiple "red flags." They argue that the proposal appears to favor Bayer by providing a near-complete release of liability while offering inadequate compensation to many class members. The firms state in their motion that the settlement would grant Bayer and its subsidiary, Monsanto, significant legal protection, whereas affected individuals might receive insufficient consideration for surrendering their rights.

Bayer announced the proposed class action settlement on February 17, aiming to resolve current and future claims related to its glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup. The settlement outlines payments ranging from $10,000 to $165,000 for users diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or those who develop it in the coming years. Bayer maintains that its glyphosate products are safe and do not cause cancer.

The opposing law firms are requesting a 60-day extension to the 15-day preliminary approval period, citing the settlement's scale and potential impact. They emphasize the need for broader public participation and scrutiny, given the concerns raised by the settlement's terms and negotiation process.

Additionally, the firms contend that the settlement disproportionately favors occupational Roundup users, such as farmers and commercial landscapers, over residential users. According to the proposed payment schedule, an occupational claimant diagnosed before age 60 with aggressive NHL could receive an average of $165,000, while a residential user with similar characteristics would average $40,000.

The law firms also object to Bayer's request for the court to stay thousands of pending lawsuits in Missouri. They argue that the 600-page settlement agreement was negotiated without adequate representation of their clients' interests.

In response, Bayer stated that it is "not surprised" by the opposition and anticipates a "robust debate" over the settlement proposal. The company expressed confidence that the proposed class settlement plan is fair to all claimants and warrants court approval.

The plaintiffs' legal team that negotiated the settlement with Bayer criticized the intervening firms, suggesting that their efforts to delay compensation hinder justice for Roundup victims who have awaited resolution for years. They also warned that without a settlement, plaintiffs face risks such as Monsanto potentially filing for bankruptcy, which could impede their ability to collect future compensation.

Bayer is also awaiting a U.S. Supreme Court review scheduled for April 27, which could influence future lawsuits against the company. Bayer argues that federal law pre-empts failure-to-warn claims, as the Environmental Protection Agency has not established a definitive cancer link and has approved labels without cancer warnings. The Supreme Court's decision could significantly impact the trajectory of ongoing and future litigation related to Roundup.