Bayer’s proposed $7.25 billion class action settlement is a “sweet deal” that violates the U.S. Constitution and “wildly violates fundamental due process rights,” one person said. Submission to court It’s an attempt to get the national plan back on track.
The challenge, filed Thursday in St. Louis City Circuit Court in Missouri, Settlement proposal proposed by Bayer A group of plaintiffs’ lawyers announced in February. Following this application, “Notice of deletion” On Friday, it seeks to move the case to federal court, where its future could be in jeopardy.
Bayer hopes the settlement agreement will resolve tens of thousands of lawsuits brought by people suffering from cancer caused by exposure to glyphosate herbicides such as Roundup. But the proposal has drawn criticism from several legal observers since it was announced and a Missouri judge gave it hasty preliminary approval.
Critics argue that the deal’s structure offers a hefty payoff. Fees: $675 million The lawyers who helped facilitate the deal were paid, but the payments to the cancer patients who made up the participants were meager. The settlement will include those currently suing the company, as well as Roundup users who develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) in the future.
Additionally, Bayer, which acquired Monsanto and its glyphosate herbicide brand in 2018, may continue to sell the product without a carcinogenic warning.
“It will reward Bayer and Monsanto for their past actions and give them permission to spray Roundup on everything and everyone…” Thursday’s new court filing states. “If approved, the settlement would relieve one of the nation’s most notorious long-term polluters from a jury trial and effectively absolve him of responsibility for his wrongdoings.”
The challenge was filed May 21 by attorneys for the two plaintiffs, including attorney Ashley Keller, who argued against Monsanto before the U.S. Supreme Court last month. inside the case Monsanto hopes to obtain a judgment that will limit future lawsuits against the company.
“Monsanto and class counsel went to court hand in hand and forced through an agreement that awarded class counsel $675 million while leaving a small burden on current and future cancer patients,” Keller told the New Rede newspaper.
In their challenge to the class action, Keller and attorneys from Frazier’s Tennessee office also argue that the deal is structured to make it “ridiculously difficult for victims to exercise their constitutional option to opt out of the legal process.” The settlement plan is designed to include current and future Roundup users who will develop cancer unless they go through a detailed series of steps to actively opt out of the program.
“This group seeks to bind a group of millions of people to settlement terms through a so-called ‘futures’ subclass that will reach anyone who has ‘seen’ someone using Roundup. “Such a group is unconstitutional and unprecedented in the annals of American jurisprudence,” the May 21 court filing said.
In a statement responding to the objections, Bayer said: Objections to nationwide settlements are common and will be considered at a final approval hearing scheduled for July.
“We believe that a long-term, well-funded class settlement proposal, supported by plaintiffs law firms representing thousands of potential class participants, is fair to all plaintiffs and deserves court approval,” the company said.
Alleges money laundering “plan”
after that Submitted on May 22nd In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Keller is seeking to “transfer” the case from state court to federal court jurisdiction. The matter is then expected to be sent to federal court in California, where U.S. District Judge Vince Chabria has overseen Roundup litigation nationwide since 2016.
Chhabria is recorded as Questioning the ethics of reconciliationcalling it “filthy,” “disgusting,” “legally questionable,” and “in serious trouble.” But Chhabria has no jurisdiction over state court matters.
“This class action lawsuit was filed not to litigate valid claims, but to cleanse the liability management scheme through the courts,” the removal petition states.
Keller is seeking federal action on behalf of a group of people suing who say they developed cancer from exposure to the company’s herbicides. Keller is normally considered a plaintiff in the lawsuit, but he is trying to convince the court that he should be considered a defendant in the settlement that his client is contesting.
Transfer to federal court depends on whether the court agrees to name the plaintiffs who disputed the settlement as defendants. Some legal experts said it presents a novel argument but may not work.
The takedown notice asserts that the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ interests in agreeing to the settlement with Monsanto are “completely aligned,” making them “settling parties” and “partners” in the lawsuit.
“The only parties opposing the relief sought by the Settlement Parties are the Opposing Defendants,” the takedown notice states.
“Each developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of using Roundup, and each has the right to pursue claims against Monsanto in court. However, if the settlement is approved, they (and thousands of similarly situated Roundup victims) will be subject to unreasonably low compensation for their injuries unless they (and thousands of similarly situated Roundup victims) successfully navigate the exorbitant opt-out process that the parties to the settlement have asked Missouri courts to bless.”
Bayer said in a statement that the takedown notice was without merit. “This litigation is properly litigated in Missouri state court, where the overwhelming majority of the remaining claims are filed,” the company said.
Lawyers who helped Bayer structure the deal say it’s the best way for the company to keep its herbicide business out of bankruptcy, ensure farmers continue to have access to its popular glyphosate herbicides, and resolve claims from people who may not be able to get justice because of crowded courts.
Chris Seger, one of the lawyers who helped seal the deal with Bayer, said the takedown notice “is a baseless delaying tactic and should be rejected immediately.”
he said The settlement is the clearest path to “ensuring compensation for cancer patients who have waited more than a decade for justice,” he said, adding that he and the other law firms supporting the agreement “continue to have confidence in this agreement.”
Supreme Court decision is coming
Lawyers for Bayer and the plaintiffs supporting the settlement are using the Supreme Court case to pressure the plaintiffs not to withdraw from the settlement. The deadline to opt out of the settlement is June 4, but the Supreme Court’s decision is not expected until late June.
The Supreme Court will rule on Monsanto’s argument that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), a state court jury cannot hold the company liable for failing to warn of a cancer risk if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not acknowledge that a cancer risk existed and did not require such a warning. EPA’s position is that glyphosate is “Unlikely” Carcinogenic.
If the plaintiffs opt out and the Supreme Court subsequently rules in Monsanto’s favor, the plaintiffs could have a harder time pursuing their case against the company and would miss out on a settlement.
A hearing on final approval of the agreement is scheduled for July, after an expected Supreme Court ruling.
Seeger said the settlement is the best option for Roundup plaintiffs due to the prospect of a Supreme Court ruling that could “wipe out Roundup’s default claims and the risk of looming Bayer bankruptcy.”
Featured image by Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash.
-
Carrie Gillum is editor-in-chief of The New Lede and a veteran investigative journalist with more than 30 years of experience covering U.S. news, including 17 years (1998-2015) as a senior correspondent for Reuters International. She is the author of Whitewashing: A Story of Herbicides, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science, which exposed the agricultural corruption of the Monsanto corporation. The book won the coveted Rachel Carson Book Award from the Association of Environmental Journalists in 2018. Her second book, the narrative law thriller The Monsanto Documents, was released on March 2, 2021.
She also contributed chapters to a textbook on environmental journalism and a book on pesticide use in Africa.
Mr. Gillum testified about his research as an invited expert before the European Parliament in 2017 and was a featured speaker at the World Democracy Forum in Strasbourg, France in 2019. He has also been a keynote speaker and panel speaker at events and universities in North America, Australia, the Netherlands, Brussels, and France.
Gillam is a regular contributor to the Guardian. Her work has also appeared in The New York Times, Huffington Post, Time, and other outlets.
In 2022, Gillum helped launch The New Lede as a journalism initiative of the Environmental Working Group.
Gillum is a member of the Association of Environmental Journalists.
