The Glyphosate Settlement Objection: Trying to Keep a Cash Cow Flowing
Do you know someone in life that still cries foul once they get what they claim to want? It seems as if at least one law firm in the ongoing glyphosate settlement debate would fit this description, writes Eric Sfiligoj at CropLife.
For several years now, most lawyers in involved with lawsuits against glyphosate use and manufacturer Bayer have publicly said they were looking for “justice for their clients” from the company, with some level of financial compensation. Then, slightly more than one year ago now, Bayer, the courts, and numerous law firms reached a multi-billion dollar settlement agreement. In essence, in exchange for money upfront, Bayer would be able to put the glyphosate legal discussion behind it, with future claims also being restricted as well.
For the most part, the majority of law firms were satisfied with this settlement arrangement. But not everyone was, apparently.
In early March, a new court challenge was filed by trial lawyers at Dallas, TX-based Fears Nachawati Law Firm. This asked the federal judge overseeing thousands of glyphosate weed killer cancer lawsuits to reject a proposed settlement that would shield Bayer from future cancer lawsuits. The motion describes the deal as “a one-way street that provides no benefits and imposes many burdens.”
Get The Newsletter Today!
