<\/p>\n
A group of 14 law firms representing nearly 20,000 plaintiffs is seeking to intervene in Bayer<\/a>\u2019s proposed class action settlement of Roundup litigation, citing concerns that the deal will not be fair to cancer<\/a> sufferers.<\/p>\n The group filed both a motion to intervene<\/a> and a motion for an extension of time<\/a> for court preliminary approval of the deal in St Louis city circuit court in Missouri late on February 24.<\/p>\n The law firms say the deal appears \u201cunprecedented\u201d and raises multiple \u201cred flags\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is hard to escape the impression that the proposed settlement would give Monsanto<\/a> everything it desires \u2013 a near-complete release of liability for Monsanto and its parent company, Bayer AG \u2013 while giving inadequate consideration to many putative class members, who would surrender their substantive rights in exchange for settlement offers that may never result in payment,\u201d the law firms state in their motion.<\/p>\n Bayer and a different group of plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers filed the settlement proposal with the court on 17 February, with a provision to seek preliminary court approval within a 15-day period.<\/p>\n But the opposing firms are seeking a 60-day extension of that \u201cfast track\u201d time frame<\/a>, saying the \u201csheer scale and impact of the proposed settlement, together with concerns raised by its terms and how it was negotiated, warrant broader public participation and scrutiny\u201d.<\/p>\n Bayer announced the $7.25bn proposed class action settlement<\/a> on February, proposing to pay amounts ranging from $10,000 to $165,000 to users of its glyphosate-based weed-killing products who have non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a type of blood cancer, or who develop it in the next several years.<\/p>\n Bayer, which maintains that its glyphosate herbicides do not cause cancer, has faced more than 100,000 lawsuits<\/a> since buying the Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018. The company has so far paid billions of dollars in settlements and jury verdicts to tens of thousands of people suffering from NHL that they blame on exposure to Roundup and other Monsanto glyphosate-based herbicide brands.<\/p>\n The law firms seeking to intervene in the proposed settlement alleged that it \u201cheavily favors\u201d occupational Roundup users such as farmers or commercial landscapers over residential users.<\/p>\n Under the proposed payment schedule, an occupational claimant diagnosed before age 60 with aggressive NHL could receive, on average, $165,000, while a residential user with the same traits would average $40,000, the motion to intervene points out.<\/p>\n Additionally, they object to Bayer\u2019s request that the court stay the thousands of lawsuits pending against the company in Missouri.<\/p>\n The law firms say the 600-page settlement agreement was \u201cnegotiated behind closed doors\u201d and does not adequately represent the interests of the plaintiffs they represent.<\/p>\n In response to the opposition filings, Bayer said in a statement that it is \u201cnot surprised\u201d and fully expects a \u201crobust debate\u201d about the settlement proposal.<\/p>\n \u201cWe remain confident that the long-term and well-financed proposed class settlement plan, which is supported by plaintiff law firms representing thousands of potential class members, is fair to all claimants, and warrants approval by the court,\u201d the company said.<\/p>\n The plaintiffs\u2019 legal team that negotiated the settlement proposal with Bayer said in a statement: \u201cIt is obvious that the proposed intervenors\u2019 have reviewed the agreement over the last week, and are hopefully working as hard to communicate its terms to their clients as they are trying to delay compensation for the tens of thousands of Roundup victims who have waited a decade for justice.\u201d<\/p>\n The team said in their statement that without a settlement, plaintiffs face \u201cthe risks of Monsanto filing for bankruptcy\u201d, among other events that could hinder their ability to collect from the company in the future.<\/p>\n Bayer is hoping a looming US supreme court review<\/a> will incentivize plaintiffs to agree to the settlement because if Bayer prevails in the case, future lawsuits against the company could be severely hampered.<\/p>\n Bayer maintains that federal law pre-empts failure-to-warn claims against the company. Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not established a definitive cancer link and has approved labels with no cancer warning, lawsuits claiming the company should have provided a cancer warning must be barred, the company says.<\/p>\n The supreme court agreed to weigh in on that issue and has set a hearing<\/a> for 27 April.<\/p>\n The company filed its opening brief<\/a> in the case on Monday. In its filing with the high court, Bayer cites support from Donald Trump <\/a>and US regulators while renewing a threat to stop sales of glyphosate-based herbicides to farmers if it does not prevail with the justices.<\/p>\n