BAYER Insiderboard WKN: BAY001 ISIN: DE000BAY0017 Forum: Aktien User: Bay5anto

Im Text heißt es wörtlich: Das Mittel jenseits der landwirtschaftlichen Nutzung vom Markt zu nehmen.

Um sich vor einer neuen Klagewelle zu schützen, prüft Bayer Einschränkungen beim Verkauf des Unkrautvernichters. https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/klagen-in-usa-bayer-vor-glyphosat-einigung-so-sieht-der-teure-plan-aus/25482884.html?ticket=ST-2075270-xu5FbwvFMRrMlU0mwXsA-ap4

Im Januar hat man das laut Handelsblatt auch intern diskutiert und wollte es umsetzen....

Und ganz ehrlich gesagt, das Image des Produktes ist derart im Keller, kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass Bayer das Produkt in den USA an Private noch mit Steigerungsraten beim Umsatz verkauft. Das wird im Zuge der Prozesse und Diskussionen eher rückläufig sein.

Das vom Markt nehmen des Produktes für Private hat mehr Vor- als Nachteile. Den Löwenanteil an Umsatz machen eh die Landwirte. Aber 99 der Kläger sind nicht Landwirte, sondern Private. Ihnen hätte man für die Zukunft den Wind aus den Segeln genommen. Und da ds Patent für Glyphosat seit Jahren abgelaufen ist und etliche Anbieter es im Sortiment haben, würde bayer sich sogar nachhaltig positiv abheben und die Klägeranwälte könnten ANDERE Anbieter verklagen.

Man kann es ja positiv formulieren und nicht von Verkaufsstop sprechen. Einfach wie in Deutschland für Private das Produkt Roundup ohne Glyphosat anbieten und sagen, die Version mit Glyphosat ist nur für gewerbliche Anwender, sprich Landwirte.

Ich sags mal so, mit einem Verkaufsstop an Private hätte man mit einem Schlag alle Bedenken ausgeräumt.

Juristisch betrachtet hochinteressant, wie man diese 4 Punkte ausräumen will und zeitgleich am Science Panel festhält.

• Even with the consent of both sides, it’s questionable whether it would be constitutional (or otherwise lawful) to delegate the function of deciding the general causation question (that is, whether and at what dose Roundup is capable of causing cancer) from judges and juries to a panel of scientists. • Even if it were lawful to delegate this function to the panel, it’s unclear how the delegation proposed here would benefit a class of Roundup users who either have cancer but have not yet sued Monsanto or have not yet developed cancer. Thus far, judges have been allowing these cases to go to juries, and juries have been reaching verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding significant compensatory and punitive damages. Why would a potential class member want to replace a jury trial and the right to seek punitive damages with the process contemplated by the settlement agreement? • In an area where the science may be evolving, how could it be appropriate to lock in a decision from a panel of scientists for all future cases? For examine, imagine the panel decides in 2023 that Roundup is not capable of causing cancer. Then imagine that a new, reliable study is published in 2028 which strongly undermines the panel’s conclusion. If a Roundup user is diagnosed with NHL in 2030, is it appropriate to tell them that they’re bound by the 2023 decision of the panel because they did not opt out of a settlement in 2020? • Given the diffuse, contingent, and indeterminate nature of the proposed class, it seems unlikely that most class members would have an opportunity to consider in a meaningful way (if at all) whether it is in their best interest to join the class. There’s nothing wrong with certifying a class of people who are candidates to suffer harm in the future when the class is narrow and readily identifiable—for example, NFL players who have not yet developed CTE. In a case like that, it’s relatively easy to ensure that the class members are notified and given meaningful chance to consider their options before deciding whether to opt out of the settlement. A class that includes all Roundup users who will get cancer in the future is very different. For example, the idea that a migrant farmworker or someone who is employed part time by a small gardening business would receive proper notification (much less the opportunity to consider their options in a meaningful way) is dubious.

Die 4 Punkte, von denen Baumann sprach, die Chhabria kritisierte sind die folgenden

We’ll see what the next weeks yield. Und es scheint eher schneller als langsam voran zu gehen.

Was ja Hoffnung gibt. Man weiß ja genau, was Chhabria kritisiert hat und muss alle 4 Punkte entkräften. Wie das gelingen kann, müssen die Anwälte nun klären. Ich denke, Feinberg kann nun die Füße nicht hochlegen und sagen, die aktuellen Fälle haben wir ja geklärt. Zum Vergleich gehören beide Teile, auch wenn es juristisch betrachtet zwei getrennte Verträge sind.

Und dies hier sagte er auch: We are working on finding a solution that addresses the four major concerns that Judge Chhabria raised, in a new proposal that we are negotiating with the representatives of the futures class. We are optimistic and we continue to make progress. We’ll see what the next weeks yield.

Das sagte Baumann bei der Telko

Entscheidend ist der letzte Satz We have two separate sets of agreements, but we are and will continue to focus on a comprehensive solution, addressing both the inventory and the future

Okay, Michael, thanks for the question. Let me say the following on the interplay. We anticipate, in line with a comprehensive solution, the €4.5 billion that we have guided for, for this year. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we are working very hard on getting both pieces of that comprehensive solution activated. I fully appreciate and understand that not only you but most of us on the call would like to know more about it. We are in the middle of working with the representatives of the future class. We are working, of course, with our court-appointed mediator Ken Feinberg, who is in the middle of it, and actually helps both parties, but also is our line into Judge Chhabria to get a solution ready as soon as humanly possible, so that it can be presented back to the judge. Now, very importantly, we’ve always said that we don’t want to have a solution for the inventory without having a solution for the future. That of course remains the objective, while those two are not contractually bound to each other. We have two separate sets of agreements, but we are and will continue to focus on a comprehensive solution, addressing both the inventory and the future