With the Acquisition of US-based seed producer Monsanto has to spend the Bayer group enormous problems. Of the billion Deal brought with it many controversial actions and some spectacular judgments with. The first of them wants to leave Bayer is now in the appeals process, repeal.
San Francisco (Reuters) – Many U.S. lawsuits because of alleged cancer risk of the weed killers with the active ingredient glyphosate, Bayer have brought in a serious crisis. The Leverkusen-based agricultural chemical and pharmaceutical giant, rejects the allegations and has appealed the previous rulings.
The dispute, with the debacle began, is now in the next round On Tuesday (local time) in San Francisco, the kick-off hearing in the appeal process. It was the sensational first glyphosate-judgment, in which the Bayer group belonging to the seed producer, Monsanto was ordered to pay damages in the millions to a cancer patient.
In the case of the due to the Corona pandemic by phone unlock-term negotiation, Monsanto’s attorney David Axelrad requested by the court, the guilty verdict should be repealed. He argued that the Federal law for the judgment, decisive case law in the state of California the parent of and, therefore, instead to be used. The three judges of the appeals panels were initially reserved, powers of the company, however, hope that the amount of compensation could again be significantly reduced. Bayer, however, that the judgment will be entirely overturned. However, even if this should succeed – there are many more of US complain.
a look back: The 10. August 2018 for the German Dax-companies is a Raven black day. The sworn jury of a court in San Francisco ruled that the a short time before from the Bayer group acquired the US company Monsanto must pay for the cancer-victim Dewayne Johnson a total of $ 289 million (260 million euros) in damages. Bayer suddenly stood with his back to the wall, even if the court reduced the amount quickly to 78 million dollars. The judgment revealed abruptly, the high risks, the group charged with the already controversial Monsanto Takeover.
plaintiff Johnson, in the 2014 cancer of the lymph nodes had been diagnosed, had Monsanto made weed killer Roundup to be deadly to Suffer responsible and the now Bayer belonging to companies accused of the dangers concealed. The Jury, followed, after a four-week process is largely the argument of the plaintiff side. For Bayer, it was a huge mess, the Leverkusen had bought Monsanto a short time before only for approximately 63 billion dollars – and thus the law applied loads. The rose is now growing rapidly, because the harsh judgment is called for much more the plaintiff to the Plan.
It is two more defeats before the US courts, image problems, and a more violent collapse of the Bayer share, for the Executive management to the chief Executive officer Werner Baumann was massively in the criticism. Most recently, Bayer claims to was presented with 52.500 the Wake of the U.S. lawsuits because of alleged cancer dangers of glyphosate weed killer from Monsanto faced. The group is unaware of any wrongdoing, and the products are used properly, harmless, notes Bayer. The company is based on various scientific studies and regulatory authorities.
According to Bayer came up with the first-instance convictions in the United States, in spite of defective evidence. In addition, had been made in the process, various errors, for example, by certain evidence were not admitted. Bayer is also likely to have not helped that in the processes so far with the laity, occupied Geschworenenjurys pronounced, the more open to the arguments of the plaintiffs ‘ lawyers, possibly as a professional judge. On appeal, this is no longer the case now.
Although Bayer’s major crisis, the first judgment went off, which is now being renegotiated, could be the output in the overall analysis at the end slightly to the side note. As with the lawyers of most of the remaining plaintiffs in the United States talks about a comparison run for a long time. Experts expect a compromise, the Bayer estimated it could cost around ten billion dollars. The group stressed, however, that any such solution can only be considered “if this is economically structured in a reasonable way, that future disputes will be brought to a conclusion”.
