Hart Acre Grains

	Headlines
	Cancer Patients Fight Roundup Deal DTN Retail Fertilizer Trends Deep Drought Drains SE Pastures, Crops Plains, Prairies Quick Takes Rural Resilience - 6 USDA Weekly Crop Progress Report Cattle Ranch Creates Ways to Grow KSU Specialists Discuss Beef Cow Size Ag Weather Forum 60-Ton Freedom Rock Honors Veterans

Cancer Patients Fight Roundup Deal

Todd Neeley 5/27 1:43 PM

This article was originally published at 12:24 p.m. CDT on Wednesday, May 27. It was last updated with additional information at 1:43 p.m. CDT on Wednesday, May 27.

LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- A group of 10 non-Hodgkin lymphoma victims is attempting to put the brakes on Bayer's proposed $7.3 billion national glyphosate-based Roundup settlement and motioned to have a state Roundup case moved to federal court where those victims are asking for a trial.

In February 2026, Bayer filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis in Missouri. That court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in March 2026.

On May 22, 2026, the group of cancer victims filed a notice of removal with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, arguing the settlement should have been filed in federal court, that they are the only true opponents of the settlement and that the case should be realigned to make them the actual defendants.

"The only reason this case was not in federal court to begin with is that the settling parties believed their perverse and collusive deal would be dead on arrival," the victims told the federal court.

The objectors' core grievance is that if the settlement is approved it would "bind them to unconscionably low compensation for their injuries unless they (and thousands of similarly situated Roundup victims) successfully navigate the outrageous opt-out procedures the settling parties have asked the Missouri trial court to bless."

To fund the class, Bayer said it would be making declining capped annual payments for up to 21 years, following court approval.

The settlement covers plaintiffs who allege exposure to Roundup prior to Feb. 17, 2026, and have a medical diagnosis of NHL now or receive a medical diagnosis of NHL before the end of a 16-year period following final approval of the agreement, according to Bayer.

Unlike a previous settlement, Bayer described in a news release that the newly proposed settlement was a "long-term compensation program."

In response to the removal motion, attorneys for Bayer and the plaintiffs in the proposed settlement motioned to have the case moved back down to the state court.

Christopher A. Seeger, proposed class counsel in the Roundup settlement, said in a statement that the objectors' action comes at a critical time.

"The brazen attempt by a small group of objectors to force this case into federal court has no legal basis, and we have asked the court to immediately remand it to Missouri state court, where it belongs," Seeger said.

"This reckless maneuver to derail a $7.25 billion settlement comes at the worst possible moment for Roundup cancer victims. A pending U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Durnell (Monsanto v. Durnell) could erase plaintiffs' central failure-to-warn claims entirely and a Bayer bankruptcy could foreclose any hope of compensation."

A Bayer spokesman offered the following statement in response to DTN's request for comment: "The removal notice has no merit as the class is properly before a Missouri state court where the overwhelming majority of remaining claims have been filed. Monsanto has filed a motion to remand the case back to state court and will work with class counsel to ensure that the proceedings with the class settlement continue in the Missouri circuit court."

In their court filing, the objectors said they first received copies of the class action petition and proposed settlement on or after May 12, 2026, but were never formally served. They filed objections in the state court and filed the notice of removal just last week.

The entire thrust of their objections is that the settlement would wipe out their individual claims against Bayer.

"The settlement imposes unconscionable hurdles to limit or extinguish class members' opt-out rights," the objectors told the federal court.

"Anyone who does not opt out by June 4, 2026, is bound by the settlement. Incredibly, that includes 'class members' who do not yet know that they have cancer and those who do not even have cancer yet."

The objectors' motion also describes what they say was a "secret" meeting between Bayer lawyers, class counsel and a judge from the Missouri state court, resulting in a proposed settlement 15 days later.

On Tuesday, plaintiffs in the state case filed a motion with the federal court to send the case back to the state court, arguing the objectors are unable to remove the case to federal court.

"Only defendants may remove a case to federal court," the plaintiffs told the federal court.

"But objectors are not defendants. And because no class has been certified in the underlying Missouri class action, they are not parties to this action at all. The court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction and should immediately remand this action to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri."

The latest court filings come just days ahead of the June 4, 2026, deadline for opt-outs from the proposed settlement and for objections to be filed in the state court. In addition, there is a final fairness hearing scheduled for July 9, 2026, in the state court.

In April 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell in a case that could put an end to failure-to-warn claims filed in state courts.