SCOTUS decision on Durnell in favour of Bayer, focus shifts to the settlement agreement

Research evidence excerpt

SCOTUS decision on Durnell in favour of Bayer, focus shifts to the settlement agreement

UpdateMand to take into account the delays from the removal proceedings that have taken

place in federal courts in recent weeks. Bayer, class counsel and any party that

requested to be heard at the final hearing have until 26 June to file a memorandum

with their positions on delaying the final hearing. After review of the memorandum,

Judge Boyer will either decide the timing of the Final Approval Hearing directly, or

he may first hold a conference with the parties.

What would happen if the settlement agreement does not go through? While we

believe that the settlement agreement is likely to be ultimately approved in the

Final Approval Hearing, we believe the SCOTUS decision also improves Bayer's

position in case the settlement does not go through. With litigation against Bayer

now made more difficult without state failure-to-warn claims, the company is in a

stronger position in the scenario where they have to negotiate a new settlement,

with potentially better terms than the current proposed settlement. However, we

believe that a renegotiation would significantly delay the resolution of the litigation

and therefore might not be management's preferred option.

Litigation liability: as of December 2025 close, Bayer recorded an €11.8bn litigation

liability on the balance sheet, including €9.6bn for glyphosate (the rest being mostly

PCB). Bayer is planning to pay €5bn in litigation payment in 2026, of which we

estimate ~€4bn is for glyphosate (one ~€3bn one-off payment to settle separate

claims, and a ~€1bn payment as the first installment of the settlement agreement

payments). We therefore expect the litigation liability to stand at ~€6.8bn at the