Articles

Client Alert: Two Tracks, One Defendant

Companion note to the Bloomberg Intelligence Votes & Verdicts episode.

Why the Supreme Court and a Missouri Class Action Decide Roundup’s Price Together

Bayer is defending Roundup on two tracks at once, and the market should read them together. On one track, the Supreme Court will decide in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell whether federal pesticide law bars a state failure-to-warn verdict the EPA never required. On the other, a Missouri state court is weighing a proposed $7.25 billion class settlement that would resolve most of the remaining cases by contract. The ruling sets the rule. The settlement sets the number. Neither is independent of the other.
 

The litigation track

The question in Durnell is narrow on its face: whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where the EPA has not required the warning. The verdict under review is $1.25 million. A St. Louis jury awarded that sum to John Durnell in 2023 on a single failure-to-warn claim, rejected the other counts and declined punitive damages. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed.

The legal stakes outrun the verdict. The federal courts of appeals are split. The Third Circuit held in Schaffner v. Monsanto Co., 113 F.4th 364 (3d Cir. 2024), that FIFRA expressly preempts these claims.[1] The Ninth Circuit in Hardeman and the Eleventh Circuit in Carson held the opposite.[2] The Supreme Court granted review in January of 2026, after the Solicitor General urged it to take the case and rule for the company, and heard argument on April 27. A decision is expected before the term ends in late June.
 

The settlement track

Running alongside the appeal is a separate effort to end the litigation by agreement. In February 2026, Bayer proposed a $7.25 billion settlement structured as a new class action in Missouri state court, designed to resolve nearly all pending Roundup cancer claims. A state judge granted preliminary approval in March and set final approval for early July.

That schedule was briefly disrupted. Objecting plaintiffs moved the new class action to federal court on May 22, seeking review by the federal judge who oversees the consolidated Roundup cases and who has sharply criticized the deal. On June 17, 2026, a federal judge in St. Louis sent the case back to state court, holding that the objecting plaintiffs could not remove it because that right belongs to the defendant.[3] The remand restores the fast-track schedule and keeps final approval before the state court.
 

Why the two tracks set one price

A defendant settles in the shadow of the law it expects. The preemption ruling and the settlement value are linked through that expectation, and the link runs in one direction.

A ruling for Monsanto strengthens its position in every case not captured by the settlement. It narrows the theories available to plaintiffs who opt out, and it lowers the expected cost of the litigation tail. That makes peace cheaper to buy. A ruling against Monsanto does the reverse. It validates the failure-to-warn theory, raises the value of the claims still outside any deal and raises the price of resolving them. The settlement is the floor Bayer is trying to set. The ruling determines whether that floor holds.

The timing illustrates the point. Final approval of the settlement is set for early July. A merits decision is expected by late June. If the opinion issues first, it will reach a settlement that is not yet final, and either strengthen or weaken Bayer’s hand at the approval stage. The sequence is not guaranteed, but the proximity is the variable to watch.
 

What a ruling does not settle

Even a complete win on preemption leaves exposure in place. The question presented reaches labeling, not design. Bayer reformulated residential Roundup without glyphosate in 2023, but it still sells glyphosate for agricultural and professional use, and plaintiffs with earlier exposure can still sue. The EPA’s separate authority over how a pesticide is sold and used is untouched. And the legislative track is open. The House Farm Bill carried a provision codifying nationwide label uniformity that would have done by statute what Bayer seeks in court. The House removed it on April 30, 2026, adopting an amendment to strike the language by a vote of 280 to 142, then passed the bill 224 to 200 and sent it to the Senate. The question is now the Senate’s. An investor reading only the opinion is reading part of the record.
 

The takeaway

Bayer is pulling two levers at the same time. One sets the rule of law for failure-to-warn claims. The other sets a dollar figure for the cases already filed. They move together. Read the rationale of the ruling, not just the holding, and read it against the settlement’s approval calendar. The headline will report a winner. The price will be set by the fine print.