Is $7.25B enough for settlement?
最新杏吧原创 judge to decide in class-action Roundup suit
ST. LOUIS 鈥 The fate of a $7.25 billion settlement designed to end a legal battle that has crippled agrochemical giant Bayer will soon be in a 最新杏吧原创 judge's hands.
During an hourslong hearing Monday, dozens of lawyers from across the country flocked to a 最新杏吧原创 courtroom to argue whether Circuit Judge Timothy Boyer should accept the settlement between Bayer's Monsanto unit and a class-action group of cancer victims who say a key ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Supporters say the settlement, announced in February, could resolve thousands of claims languishing in courts across the country. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court insulated Bayer from a key claim in most of the lawsuits, making it less likely that cancer victims would be awarded additional money beyond the settlement, lawyers say.
"The settlement is, in my judgment, a good deal when it was signed, and it's an even better deal now," 最新杏吧原创-based attorney Eric Holland, who represents some of the cancer victims, said in court.
Opponents of the settlement said it would unfairly keep people with future cancer diagnoses from having their day in court and doesn't offer enough money to compensate people for their pain.
For example, 最新杏吧原创 resident John Durnell, who won a $1.25 million verdict that was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, would get just $15,000 鈥 not even enough to pay his debts, his lawyer, T. Roe Frazer, said in court.
"I urge you to reject this settlement on fundamental due process fairness grounds," Frazer said.
Boyer is expected to rule on the agreement at a later date, though his decision will likely be subject to appeals.
The debate over Roundup, developed and manufactured for decades by Creve Coeur-based Monsanto, began in 2015 when a World Health Organization cancer research organization found that glyphosate 鈥 a key ingredient in the weedkiller 鈥 was a probable carcinogen. A flood of lawsuits against Monsanto followed.
In June 2018, German pharmaceutical and chemical giant Bayer closed on a $63 billion deal to acquire Monsanto.
Within weeks, a California jury awarded $289 million to a school groundskeeper, finding that Monsanto failed to warn him about the cancer risks of using Roundup. Two more defeats followed shortly thereafter. The company maintained its products were safe.
Still, Bayer's share prices plummeted, and the company's lawsuit-related liabilities ballooned into the billions.
In all, an estimated 65,000 claims have been filed against Monsanto. Just 24 have gone to trial, lawyers said in court Monday 鈥 11 verdicts have been in favor of cancer victims, and 13 for Monsanto.
Meanwhile, Bayer advocated for changes to the law to shield it from most product liability claims. And in February, it reached a landmark $7.25 billion settlement with thousands of cancer victims.
Four months later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bayer's favor in its appeal of Durnell's $1.25 million verdict. The decision effectively prevents people from pursuing what has been the most successful claim for liability 鈥 that Bayer failed to warn people of the risks of glyphosate.
On Monday, lawyers said that was a key reason why the settlement was such a good deal.
"The star of the show is failure to warn," said New Jersey-based attorney Christopher Seeger, "and we lost the star of the show."
Under the settlement, claimants would receive anywhere from $10,000 to $165,000 depending on factors like the severity of the cancer, how they were exposed and the age of their diagnosis. It also includes an extra $400 million in compensation for people with "extraordinary circumstances."
People with future cancer diagnoses could also be eligible for a piece of the settlement, lawyers said.
But that part of the agreement was a sticking point for several objectors.
Dr. Gerson Smoger, a lawyer and physician, said it was the "scariest, worst future settlement that has ever been contemplated" that violated people's rights to a day in court.
Another lawyer quipped that if he was an insurance lawyer, he'd reach a similar blanket settlement with all people who get rear-ended in the future to reduce liabilities.
Other lawyers said the settlement should be rejected because it attempts to lump people with very different circumstances and from all over the country into the same group.
Still others said a proposed $675 million for attorney's fees wasn't enough to adequately compensate the dozens of lawyers who spent money, time and resources on lengthy trials and appeals.
But Jim Bennett, partner of the high-profile 最新杏吧原创-based law firm Dowd Bennett, said it was an "extremely hard-fought" settlement that was a good deal for everyone 鈥 and especially his client, Monsanto.
It is "manifestly fair, reasonable and equitable," he said.
Katie Kull – 314-410-0281 kkull@post-dispatch.com
