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

Zumal Chhabria in seiner schriftlichen Erklärung am 6.7. folgendes sagte: Given the Court’s current skepticism, it could be contrary to everyone’s interest to delay the hearing on preliminary approval. If the motion for preliminary approval is denied, the parties will presumably move to Plan B for devising a system to address future claims. (Although the Court is not aware of any Plan B, it would be surprising if none existed given the stakes involved and the novelty of Plan A.) And if the parties are going to need to move to Plan B, they would presumably prefer to do that sooner rather than later. Moreover, if the motion would already be denied on the current record, it would be a waste of time and money to wait for hundreds of pages of briefing from dozens of lawyers and law professors from around the country, no matter how interesting those briefs would be

Reine Spekulation, aber wir befinden uns ja in einem Diskussionsforum.

Wenn beide Verträge getrennt voneinander geschlossen werden und der erste Teil bereits geschlossen wurde, was passiert dann, wenn man für den zweiten Part (künftige Klagen) nicht zusammen findet? Dann bliebe doch nur, Roundup für Private vom Markt zu nehmen. Evtl. ist das ja die eigentliche Intention von Feinberg und Chhabria.

Bayer hat mehrfach beteuert. Zitat: Bayer werde eine Lösung nur dann in Betracht ziehen, „wenn diese wirtschaftlich sinnvoll und so strukturiert ist, dass zukünftige Rechtsstreitigkeiten zu einem Abschluss gebracht werden“.

Bay5anto, ich hatte gestern was zum vertraglich zweigeteilten Vergleich geschrieben. Was meinst Du dazu?

👍

Warum konnte ein erfahrener Mann wie Feinberg nicht absehen, dass der Zukunftsdeal nicht durchgeht? Das Bayer da leichtgläubig war ok, aber mich Feinberg soll ja theoretisch neutral für beide Seite. Arbeiten und hätte das doch vorher mit Chabria testen müssen.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/07/10/575125.htm

Scott Partridge, a Monsanto veteran who became Bayer’s general counsel after the deal was completed, decided to sidestep the lead plaintiffs’ lawyers (they’re called the plaintiffs steering committee), and open negotiations with dozens of other lawyers with large numbers of Roundup cases. Sure enough, with the pandemic having put everything on hold, they wanted to do a deal. Suddenly this intractable litigation gave way to progress, as one law firm after another signed on to a settlement outline that Feinberg and others helped craft. By April, Feinberg felt certain that a deal was close. And while it took two more months to get to the finish line, he was right. The final terms called for Bayer to pay about $9.5 billion to settle about 100,000 cases, with $1.5 billion more or so to handle various other issues, including future claimants. That still means 25,000 lawsuits haven’t accepted the terms, but Feinberg told the New York Times he “would be surprised if there are any future trials.” Besides, as part of the settlement, a five-member scientific panel will be established to examine causation — that is, does glyphosate truly cause cancer? Its conclusion will be binding, which means that the holdouts could get nothing if the panel rules that Roundup is benign, as Bayer believes it will.

Auch ganz interessant, wer es noch nicht kannte...

Jetzt muss Bayer hat liefern... kann sich halt noch einige Tage/Wochen ziehen bis eine mögliche neue Einigung gibt. Günstiger wird sie aber definitiv nicht werden.

Und dies hier noch aus seinem Eingangs-Statement ehe die Fragerubde offiziell startete: We continue to work on addressing the court’s concerns as expeditiously as possible but, given the number of parties involved and the complexity of the issues involved in these discussions, we cannot provide an estimate of the timetable for going back to the court, at this point in time.

Ich habe die zwei Antworten von Baumann zum Glyphosatkomplex mal heraus kopiert und hier eingestellt.

Unter Transcript ist der Original-Wortlaut der Analystentelko

https://www.investor.bayer.de/de/nc/events/live-events/q2-2020-telefonkonferenz/

Then let me come to the litigation. As I mentioned earlier, our approach has been and continues to be that we are shooting for a comprehensive solution. To the extent that you are following us closely, it’s very clear that Judge Chhabria is very supportive of the inventory settlement, so that’s not where the issue is. 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.