OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) --- Finding “glaring flaws” in a $2 billion deal to resolve future Roundup claims, a federal judge nixed a proposed settlement Wednesday that he found “would accomplish a lot for Monsanto,” but not much for Roundup users.
U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria rejected all aspects of the agreement in a pointed 6-page order — from the $1.3 billion compensation fund, the benefits of which he found were “vastly overstated” — to the four years of medical monitoring promised to those who have been exposed to Roundup but may develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma decades down the road.
“In sum, the settlement proposed by these attorneys would accomplish a lot for Monsanto. It would substantially diminish the company’s settlement exposure and litigation exposure at the back end, eliminating punitive damages and potentially increasing its chances of winning trials on compensatory damages,” Chhabria wrote. “It would accomplish far less for the Roundup users who have not been diagnosed with NHL — and not nearly as much as the attorneys pushing this deal contend."
His decision was foreseeable given the qualms he expressed at a hearing last week, where attorneys representing thousands of people with potential personal injury claims urged him to focus on the benefits the deal provides — chiefly medical monitoring and diagnostic testing. “We cannot look only at things that are arguably reducible to dollars and cents,” lead class attorney Elizabeth Cabraser said.
But Chhabria said four years of monitoring will not suffice for those who may develop cancer in the future, as the latency period for non-Hodgkin lymphoma is quite long, and more than half of the people who contract the disease are diagnosed after the age of 65.
The compensation fund is also inadequate, he said, as it presumes that there will be enough money in a quickly diminishing pot for those who may need it in far into the future, and Monsanto really has no incentive to replenish it.
“The fund is designed to last only four years. It may even be exhausted earlier by claims from people already diagnosed with NHL. Since many people in the second group will likely receive their diagnosis more than four years down the line (with or without medical monitoring), they will not be able to request compensation from the fund,” Chhabria wrote.
In exchange for this flimsy benefit, he said, class members must give up their right to sue Monsanto for punitive damages, the value of which attorneys favoring the deal appear to have discounted.
"The attorneys pushing this deal repeatedly intone that it will be difficult for Roundup users who are diagnosed with NHL in the future to get a trial, given the limited capacity of courts and given that many plaintiffs will be ‘in line’ ahead of them. This means, the attorneys imply, that relinquishing the ability to seek punitive damages at trial is no big deal. Surely counsel must know that this misses the most important issue, which is that class members, by waiving punitive damages, would be greatly diminishing the future settlement value of their claims,” Chhabria wrote.
This is not a situation where Monsanto is at risk of bankruptcy, the judge added, as its new owner is a “massive, wealthy company, and it continues to make money specifically from Roundup sales.”
Monsanto’s proposed “science panel” also proved to be a sticking point for the judge, who noted Monsanto’s last three losses on causation as motivation to have a court-appointed panel of experts determine whether Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and if so, at what minimum exposure levels.
“At present, the playing field on the issue of expert testimony related to causation is slanted heavily in favor of plaintiffs,” he wrote. “Thus, agreeing in advance to admit the opinion of a court-blessed panel that might undercut the opinions of the plaintiffs’ experts is a significant concession for the class members — one that could greatly reduce their chances of winning. And again, it would reduce settlement value.”
Follow @MariaDinzeo
