Law360 | By Lauren Berg
Monsanto urged a California judge to toss a jury’s verdict that Roundup likely caused a couple’s cancer and its staggering $2.055 billion damages award and enter judgment for the company or order a new trial, arguing the verdict was not based on evidence but on “deep passion and prejudice.”
The Recorder | By Amanda Bronstad
“Repeated misconduct by plaintiffs’ counsel” influenced jurors who awarded more than $2 billion to a California couple in a trial over Roundup herbicide, according to Monsanto Co. in court documents seeking to overturn the verdict.
Legal NewsLine | By Dan Fisher
Monsanto has asked a federal judge to throw out an $80 million jury verdict over its Roundup herbicide, saying the plaintiff failed to present any admissible scientific evidence the product caused the plaintiff’s cancer.
Law360 | By Hannah Albarazi
Monsanto argued that Hardeman failed to present any admissible scientific evidence or expert testimony regarding whether Roundup is capable of causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma and reiterated that glyphosate has been approved by regulators in countries around the world.
The Recorder | By Ross Todd
In court papers filed Friday, Bayer’s lawyers at Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz; Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer; Hollingsworth; and Covington & Burling claim the jury’s finding that Roundup use caused Sonoma County resident Edwin Hardeman’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma runs counter to regulatory determinations and scientific evidence showing that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, doesn’t pose a cancer threat to humans when used properly.
The Federalist Society
In a series of recent decisions, both federal and state courts have allowed the admission of scientific evidence alleging that Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller is associated with lymphoma. These courts have allowed these cases to proceed, despite the fact that the EPA and other authorities have concluded that there is no established link between such products and cancer.
Science Magazine | By Erik Stokstad
“Total fear and shock.” That’s how Andrew Kniss, a weed scientist at the University of Wyoming in Laramie, describes the reaction of farmers to recent courtroom defeats suffered by a leading manufacturer of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide.
Reuters | By Tina Bellon
“We have very strong arguments that the claims here are preempted … and the recent EPA registration decision is an important aspect of that defense,” William Hoffman, one of Bayer’s lawyers, said during a call with reporters on Wednesday.
Reason | By David Bernstein
To say that these verdicts are not justified by the scientific evidence would be a massive understatement. Every regulatory body in the world that has studied Roundup has declared that it’s safe and that it’s unlikely that it’s a carcinogen.
Law.com | By Amanda Bronstad
Despite losing three verdicts in California over Roundup, including this week’s $2 billion jury award, Bayer AG isn’t backing down.
Bayer today provided an update on its five-point plan to address future Roundup™ litigation risk after its May 27th decision to withdraw from the national class process. The company is now in more control of important aspects of the risk mitigation process and has sketched out two basic scenarios going forward to provide a path to closure of this litigation. The first scenario is based on obtaining a favorable decision by the United States Supreme Court on a cross-cutting issue like federal preemption which would effectively and largely end the U.S. Roundup™ litigation. The second scenario assumes that the Supreme Court either declines to hear the Hardeman case or issues a ruling in favor of plaintiff – in that case the company would activate its own claims administration program.
Read about the five-point plan here.