Bayer is still struggling to put the glyphosate dispute behind it. For years, the Leverkusen-based agriculture and pharmaceutical group has been trying to contain the US lawsuits surrounding the weedkiller Roundup once and for all. A new settlement worth up to $7.25 billion was meant to resolve a large share of current and future claims. But now the plan could become more complicated again.
Several plaintiffs are trying to move the case from Missouri to a federal court in California. There, Judge Vince Chhabria could become responsible for the matter. That would be tricky for Bayer, as Chhabria has sharply criticized and blocked earlier settlement plans by the company in the past. What was meant to be a painstakingly negotiated breakthrough could once again turn into a legal risk.
The planned settlement was meant to finally bring relief
Bayer urgently needs reliability in the glyphosate dispute. Since its acquisition of Monsanto in 2018, the company has been haunted by a wave of lawsuits over Roundup. Tens of thousands of plaintiffs claim that the glyphosate-based weedkiller caused cancer. Bayer rejects these allegations and points to regulatory assessments stating that glyphosate is safe when used properly.
Even so, the company has already spent billions on settlements and provisions. The new $7.25 billion deal is now intended to bundle as many pending and future claims as possible. For Bayer, this is not only about money, but also about predictability. As long as the glyphosate cases remain unresolved, a massive valuation discount continues to weigh on the stock.
That is exactly why every delay is dangerous. The capital market has been waiting for years for a credible end to the Monsanto risk.
Why Chhabria is so uncomfortable for Bayer
Judge Vince Chhabria is not a minor figure in the glyphosate litigation. For years, he oversaw central Roundup cases in a so-called multidistrict litigation proceeding in San Francisco. He was already highly critical of Bayer’s earlier settlement attempts.
What particularly bothered him at the time was that, in his view, Bayer had not provided enough for future plaintiffs. He warned, in essence, that a settlement could benefit the company more than people who might only fall ill later and then have few rights left.
This question remains decisive today: How can current claims be bundled without unfairly binding future plaintiffs? A settlement that ends ongoing proceedings is legally simpler. A settlement that is also intended to cover people who may only become ill later is much more sensitive.
The venue becomes a strategic issue
Bayer wants to keep the case in Missouri. That is where the settlement was filed, and that is apparently where the company sees better chances of achieving an orderly conclusion. The plaintiffs challenging the deal, however, want to open the path to California. A US judicial panel has ordered a preliminary transfer toward the federal court in San Francisco, though Bayer emphasizes that this is not yet a final decision on venue.
That may sound technical, but it is strategically highly relevant. The judge responsible can decide how strictly the settlement is reviewed, how objections are handled and whether the deal can stand in its planned form.
For Bayer, a review by Chhabria would be a risk. Not necessarily because the settlement would have to fail, but because the likelihood would increase that the deal could be dissected more closely, delayed or renegotiated.
The Supreme Court remains Bayer’s second major hope
At the same time, Bayer is relying on a decision by the US Supreme Court. The issue there is whether federal law can preempt stricter warning-label requirements under state law. If Bayer succeeds before the Supreme Court, many future glyphosate lawsuits could become significantly harder to pursue or even largely blocked.
For the company, that would be a potential breakthrough. But the decision is still pending, and the outcome is uncertain. That is exactly why the settlement is so important: Bayer is trying to contain the litigation risk through several routes at once.
The problem is that both routes are uncertain. The Supreme Court could help Bayer, but it does not have to. The settlement could end many lawsuits, but it could once again be slowed down by objections and venue disputes.
Investors are nervous
The legal uncertainty is now clearly weighing on Bayer shares. On Tuesday, the stock came under heavy pressure and at times lost more than 6 percent. That pushed the shares to their lowest level in around 6 months and made Bayer the weakest performer in the Dax. The stock had already fallen significantly the day before. Since the start of the year, the shares have now lost almost 10 percent.
For investors, the situation is delicate because the planned settlement was actually supposed to be a step toward legal certainty. Instead, concerns are growing again that the glyphosate chapter could drag on further or become more expensive than hoped. That uncertainty is putting particularly strong pressure on the share price.
According to market observers, the latest sell-off is also linked to the deadline of June 4, 2026. Until that date, plaintiffs can opt out of the preliminarily approved class settlement. The more plaintiffs make use of that option, the weaker the signal for Bayer. The market is therefore increasingly nervous about whether support for the settlement will be broad enough.
For investors, this is crucial. The company does not just need any settlement. It needs a settlement that noticeably reduces the litigation risk. If doubts arise, the valuation discount on the stock remains in place.
A settlement is not yet a final line under the dispute
The case shows how difficult it is to finally resolve mass litigation in the United States. Even a multibillion-dollar settlement does not guarantee legal certainty if plaintiffs object, future claims are affected or courts question the fairness of the deal.
For Bayer, this is particularly bitter. The company needs closure, but every attempt to resolve as many risks as possible at once makes the structure legally vulnerable. The more comprehensive the settlement is meant to be, the more closely judges will examine it.
That is the core of the problem: Bayer wants finality. The US legal system grants it only under strict conditions.
Glyphosate remains Bayer’s biggest stock market problem
A possible move to Chhabria does not automatically mean that the settlement will fail. But it shows how fragile Bayer’s strategy remains. A single procedural step can be enough to raise fresh doubts about the painstakingly built path toward a resolution.
For Bayer, this is more than a legal episode. It is about trust, valuation and strategic room for maneuver. As long as glyphosate is not finally resolved, the Monsanto deal remains a burden that overshadows almost every other company development.
On the stock market, investors are therefore not only looking at quarterly figures, the pharmaceutical pipeline or the corporate restructuring. The decisive question remains whether Bayer can finally make the glyphosate risks calculable. The latest share price slide shows that as long as this answer is missing, the stock remains vulnerable to every new twist in the US legal dispute.
