The company argues that it should be shielded from state lawsuits since the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the sale of Roundup to US consumers and farmers without any warnings.
Speaking at a press conference, Bayer chief executive Bill Anderson said the class settlement was needed despite the possibility of a favourable Supreme Court judgment.
“A decision in our favour would address cases not covered by the settlement, including significant adverse pending judgments,” he said.
“Plus, a favourable decision from the Supreme Court would both disincentivise and cover potential opt-outs,” he added in a reference to those claimants who might reject the proposed settlement.
Bayer shares surged after the announcement and were the best performer on Germany’s blue chip DAX index, up 7.35%.
‘Broken’ legal system
Getting the settlement through would mark a milestone for Bayer, which otherwise faces a potentially still long and expensive legal road.
About 67,000 Roundup cases are still outstanding and Anderson told the Wall Street Journal last year that Bayer might give up on Roundup, the world’s most popular weedkiller, citing the cost of prolonged court battles.
Announcing that it had reached separate settlements for some Roundup cases as well as other disputes, Bayer said it was now setting aside €11.8b to pay for litigation in its business year to the end of September 2025, up from €7.8b previously.
Bayer expected litigation payouts of about €5b for 2026 “on a first estimate”, it said, adding that it would delay announcing its financial results and 2026 guidance from February 25 to March 4.
The settlements did not contain or imply any admission of liability or wrongdoing, Anderson said, charging that the US legal system was “broken”.
“Today’s announcement does not take away from the truth, a truth that scientists and regulators around the planet continue to uphold, that glyphosate is safe and essential,” he said.
“So while this settlement is necessary for the company today, we maintain our significant objections to the broken tort system that makes it necessary.”
-Agence France-Presse