Bayer’s Roundup Settlement Conspiracy with Victim is Pay to Appeal Scheme

The Roundup settlement has not been without its controversy. The federal judge assigned to the case has shown strong opposition to the settlement through some of his comments. There is growing speculation that this $10 billion settlement will not go through. Now, Bayer is accused of further scheming to get its way in court as it prepares for the possibility that the settlement agreement may not be approved. The company allegedly has paid someone to appeal their case to a higher court to get a favorable ruling on the record.

Bayer Wants Precedent to Make its Legal Position Stronger

In the end, Bayer wants to establish precedent that could make it more difficult for other plaintiffs to beat it in court. Initial plaintiffs in the Roundup cases won large verdicts against the chemical giant after alleging that they contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of using Roundup. Juries saw extensive evidence of Monsanto’s (the company that made Roundup and was bought by Bayer) misconduct and wanted to teach the company a lesson. Although they were later reduced, juries slapped Bayer with verdicts that ranged up to $1 billion for trying to convince the public that Roundup was safe when it knew all along of the danger.

Sensing that Roundup verdicts could bankrupt the company, Bayer agreed to a global settlement in the case. However, that has not been the end of the story as Bayer may need to keep fighting in court. The settlement may not be approved, and the company could face future cases. With that in mind, the company is pursuing a controversial legal strategy that some say is against the law.

Bayer’s Goal Is the Supreme Court

Bayer wants its case to end up in the Supreme Court to get a ruling that could be precedent and sink the other cases against it. The company senses that it has a friendly audience on the high court that could get it out of the legal and financial trouble in which it finds itself. The particular deal came about in a settlement with one of the plaintiffs in the case. The agreement contains an unusual provision. Instead of completely dropping his case, the plaintiff is continuing it in court. Most defendants settle cases to end them. Bayer is doing the exact opposite here. Bayer has a vested financial interest in keeping this case going.

Bayer Won a Key Ruling in a Lower Court

The issue here is that Bayer has already won on a specific legal matter in state court that could help it in future claims. Specifically, a lower court had already found that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state laws about failure to warn of the dangers of a product. This is a lower court ruling, and Bayer wants it to continue working its way through the appellate court system to ensure that it becomes precedent. Bayer thinks that its case is strong, and that its legal arguments will be accepted by the court on appeal.

However, when Bayer settled the case that led to this ruling, there was a provision in the settlement agreement that required the plaintiff to appeal the case and keep the appeal going until it reached the final levels of review. The agreement even penalizes the plaintiff if they withdraw the appeal and end their legal case, making them pay $100,000 to Bayer. The goal is to get the case to the Supreme Court in the hopes that it will take up the matter on appeal. If Bayer establishes that federal law applies instead of state law, it could significantly cut its legal bill for future cases.

Plaintiffs Attorneys Claim that Bayer Is Trying to Manipulate the Legal System

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have objected bitterly to this scheme. They are referring to it as a “pay for appeal” agreement. The mechanics of the agreement seem very ethically questionable. For its part, Bayer says that these types of agreements are common, and they are not doing anything that any other defendant has not done in the past.

This is not the first time that defendants in this case have acted in a dubious manner to try to influence results. The conduct that got Monsanto into trouble in the first place was its attempt to try to influence science to show that Roundup was safe for public use. The company hired scientists to attach their names and reputations to company-written reports that took exception to the prevailing scientific knowledge that Roundup could cause cancer. This allowed it to keep its dangerous product on the market for decades. The result is that over 100,000 people have claimed that they were sickened by the alleged carcinogen in Roundup.

The Court of Appeals Has Been Asked to Dismiss the Case

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have written to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, asking them to dismiss the appeal with prejudice and not allow Bayer to get what it desperately wants. Bayer claims that it is being transparent about what it is trying to do in this case. The company audaciously admits that it is paying the plaintiff to keep appealing the case, and it says that there is nothing wrong with that arrangement. Plaintiffs have told the court that this attempt is a “brazen manipulation” of the justice system. All parties are watching this appeal closely as the original settlement seems to be in trouble.

If you or a loved one have been exposed to Roundup and have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, you may still be able to file a claim for compensation in your case so long as the statute of limitations has not expired. If you have not already filed a claim, you can still file a lawsuit in your case. If you have already filed a claim, there is nothing that obligates you to settle your case for the amount that is offered. You should contact a Roundup lawsuit attorney today to discuss your legal options for you to receive compensation for your injuries.