- Appeals court finds warning claims are trumped by federal law
- Ruling could set up case for review by the US Supreme Court
A Philadelphia appeals court concluded Thursday that federal regulations governing the pesticide’s warning label supersede Pennsylvania laws under which a Roundup user in the state claimed Bayer’s
The ruling from the three-judge panel suggests that one of the central claims against the company may fail in state court, where the majority of the current cases are.
Bayer shares surged as much as 10% in early German trading on Friday, the biggest intraday gain in five years. The stock had fallen about 49% in the past 12 months and more than 70% since Bayer completed the acquisition of agriculture company Monsanto in June 2018.
Over the last year, state court juries have hit Bayer with
Bayer has set aside as much as $16 billion to resolve more than 100,000 cases over Roundup, which it acquired when it bought Monsanto for $63 billion. The conglomerate now faces a second wave of suits over the weedkiller, many of which include failure-to-warn claims that have been the basis for many of the jury verdicts against the company.
In their decision, the US appeals court cited how federal regulation requires health warnings on pesticide labels to conform to those approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The ruling potentially sets up the case for review by the US Supreme Court. In February, another federal appeals court in Atlanta
The ruling creates a “split among the federal appellate courts and necessitates a review by the US Supreme Court,” a Bayer spokesman said in an email. Bayer insists that Roundup is safe.
Read More:
The next step could entail a more comprehensive review from the Philadelphia appeals court, which may take months and could push back trials scheduled in Pennsylvania,
Tom Kline, a Philadelphia lawyer who represented a man who claims Roundup exposure caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the ruling.
In another Roundup case, a client of Kline was
The case is Schaffner v. Monsanto Corp., 22-3075, US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Philadelphia).
(Updates with share price.)
To contact the reporters on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Peter Blumberg, Jamie Nimmo
© 2024 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.