The Ruveon Restructuring: What Bayer’s New Glyphosate Subsidiary Means for Your Roundup Cancer Claim
You used Roundup. Maybe for years — on the farm, at the landscaping company, in your own backyard. Then the diagnosis came: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. And somewhere in the fog of chemotherapy schedules and insurance fights, you started hearing about the lawsuits — thousands of them, billions of dollars in settlements, a Supreme Court case that was supposed to decide everything.
Now you’re reading that the Supreme Court ruled in Bayer’s favor. And Bayer just created a brand-new company called Ruveon to run its entire glyphosate business. The stock jumped 8 percent. Analysts are saying it could be the first step toward spinning off the Roundup business entirely — walking away from the liability while keeping the profits.
We are writing this for you — the person sitting at a kitchen table at 2 a.m. with a cancer diagnosis and a folder of medical bills, trying to figure out whether you still have a case or whether the door just closed. That door did not close. It changed shape. What walked through it is a more complicated fight, but it is a fight that can still be won — if you understand what the Supreme Court actually ruled, what Bayer is actually doing with Ruveon, and what legal theories survived the preemption decision when the failure-to-warn theory did not.
This is what we do — we handle toxic tort and product liability cases with the same intensity and preparation we bring to every catastrophic injury claim, and the glyphosate mass tort is one of the most significant product liability landscapes in American legal history. Let us walk you through what just happened, what it means for your case, and what to do about it.
The Supreme Court Preemption Ruling: Did It Kill All Roundup Lawsuits?
No. But it fundamentally changed the battlefield, and anyone who tells you “all Roundup cases are dead” is either misinformed or is counting on you not reading further.
Here is what actually happened. The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — the federal law that governs pesticide registration and labeling — preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims for glyphosate products. The legal reasoning runs like this: FIFRA requires pesticide labels to be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has not required a cancer warning for glyphosate. Therefore, a state court cannot hold Bayer liable for failing to add a cancer warning that the federal regulator never required — because imposing that state-law duty would create a labeling requirement that differs from or exceeds the federal standard, which FIFRA prohibits.
This is express preemption. It is the same structural doctrine the Supreme Court applied to generic drug manufacturers in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing and to Class III medical devices in Riegel v. Medtronic — when federal law dictates what a label must say, a state jury cannot be allowed to say the label should have said something different.
What this ruling forecloses is specific: the failure-to-warn theory. That was the backbone of the Roundup litigation — the argument that Monsanto and Bayer knew glyphosate was carcinogenic and failed to warn users. That theory, for new claims going forward, appears to be preempted.
But what the ruling did NOT do is bar every theory of liability against Bayer. Design defect claims — that the product itself was unreasonably dangerous regardless of what the label said — may survive. Negligent testing claims — that Monsanto failed to adequately study glyphosate’s carcinogenicity or manipulated research findings — may survive. Fraudulent concealment claims — that the company actively hid evidence of cancer risk from regulators and the public — may survive. And claims that were already filed, already in the settlement framework, or already past certain procedural milestones may have different status than brand-new claims filed after the ruling.
The critical distinction a generalist lawyer misses: FIFRA preemption bars state-law labeling requirements that conflict with or exceed federal labeling standards. It does not immunize a manufacturer from all state tort liability. A company that produces a product an internal scientist flagged as carcinogenic, that an international cancer authority classified as “probably carcinogenic,” and that generated billions in revenue while thousands of users developed the same cancer — that company may still face claims that do not depend on what the label said.
The Roundup multidistrict litigation — MDL-2741, consolidated before Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California — had approximately 3,909 actions pending as of mid-2026. Those cases, and the broader mass tort landscape, are now reorienting around the theories that preemption left standing.
What Ruveon LLC Actually Is — and Why Its Formation Matters to Your Case
Bayer announced that it is consolidating its entire U.S. glyphosate business — pricing, go-to-market strategy, production, logistics — into a new subsidiary called Ruveon LLC, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. The company stated this is part of a “five-year framework to boost growth and profitability.”
“Ruveon is expected to be a more nimble and well-positioned player within its commodity-based market, which requires a specialized approach to address competitive dynamics.”
Read that statement the way a trial attorney reads it. “Nimble” and “well-positioned” are words a company uses when it wants flexibility — flexibility to respond to market conditions, flexibility to restructure, and, critically, flexibility to potentially separate a business unit from the parent corporation that carries the litigation liability.
Here is what you need to understand about what just happened, structurally:
Bayer AG is the German parent corporation that acquired Monsanto in 2018. Monsanto Company is the original developer and manufacturer of Roundup — the named defendant in the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma litigation and the entity behind the $7.3 billion settlement. Now Ruveon LLC is a newly formed Bayer subsidiary that will assume sole responsibility for all U.S. glyphosate operations.
The question that matters to your case is this: when a company creates a new subsidiary and transfers its most profitable product line into it, while the parent and the original subsidiary carry billions in tort liability, what happens to the assets? What happens to the insurance? What happens to the corporate records? And if Bayer later spins off Ruveon — as stock analysts are openly speculating — does the spun-off entity carry the liability, or does it walk away with the revenue while the litigation-choked shell stays behind?
These are successor liability and corporate structure questions, and they are exactly the kind of questions that demand immediate discovery. The formation documents, the asset transfer agreements, the board minutes authorizing the restructuring, the executive communications about why Ruveon was created — every one of these is a document that exists right now and should be preserved before any further restructuring makes it harder to find.
Bayer also named Ruveon as a petitioner in an International Trade Commission filing seeking antidumping and countervailing duties against imported glyphosate products. Think about what that tells you: Bayer is simultaneously restructuring to potentially limit litigation exposure AND using the new subsidiary to protect its market dominance against foreign competitors. Bayer/Monsanto produces roughly 60 percent of glyphosate sold in the United States and 40 percent globally. Glyphosate generated $2.4 billion in revenue in 2024 alone. This is not a company preparing to exit the business. This is a company rearranging the furniture.
The generalist sees a corporate press release about “operational efficiency.” The trial attorney sees a company that just created a potential firewall between its most profitable product line and its most expensive liability — and knows that the time to demand the internal documents explaining that decision is now, before the next restructuring makes the trail harder to follow.
The $7.3 Billion Roundup Settlement: Are You In It?
In March 2026, a circuit court in Missouri granted preliminary approval to Bayer’s $7.3 billion Roundup settlement framework. This is one of the largest mass tort settlements in American history, and it reflects the scale of the litigation — thousands of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma claims resolved through a structured framework rather than individual trials.
Here is what you need to understand about where you stand:
If you already filed a claim and are enrolled in the settlement framework: Your case may proceed through the settlement structure regardless of the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling. The settlement is a contract — Bayer agreed to pay, and the class members agreed to release, under terms that were negotiated before the SCOTUS decision. Confirm your enrollment status with whatever attorney or claims administrator is handling your claim. Do not assume you are covered. Do not assume the settlement covers your specific diagnosis and exposure profile. Get it in writing.
If you were exposed to Roundup, developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, but have NOT yet filed a claim: The legal landscape has shifted beneath you. The failure-to-warn theory — the primary engine of the prior litigation — may now be preempted for new claims. But you may still have viable claims under alternative theories, and the settlement framework may or may not have provisions for late-joining claimants. The window is not closed, but the path through it is narrower and requires a more sophisticated legal approach than it did before the SCOTUS ruling.
If you lost a family member to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and believe Roundup exposure was the cause: Wrongful death claims carry their own statute of limitations, their own beneficiary rules, and their own damages framework. The preemption ruling affects the theory of liability, not the damages structure — but the time to act is shorter and the procedural requirements are stricter.
The settlement framework is administered through Missouri courts — the same state where Ruveon is now headquartered, and where Monsanto’s historical U.S. operations have been based for decades. Missouri circuit courts have been an active and significant venue for Roundup-related proceedings, and the Eastern District of Missouri and Missouri state courts have handled complex product liability and mass tort matters extensively.
Legal Theories That Survive FIFRA Preemption
The Supreme Court’s FIFRA preemption ruling forecloses state failure-to-warn claims tied to EPA-regulated labeling for glyphosate. But product liability law has always had multiple doors. Closing one does not lock the building.
Design defect / strict products liability. A design defect claim argues that the product itself — glyphosate as formulated — is unreasonably dangerous, regardless of what the label says. This theory does not depend on a labeling requirement that conflicts with FIFRA. It asks whether a reasonable manufacturer, knowing what Monsanto knew about glyphosate’s potential carcinogenicity, would have sold the product in this form at all. The challenge is significant: you must overcome the EPA’s regulatory position that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” But the International Agency for Research on Cancer — the World Health Organization’s cancer authority — classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) in 2015. That divergence between the EPA and IARC is the scientific fault line the case lives on.
Negligent testing and research misconduct. This theory argues that Monsanto failed to adequately test glyphosate for carcinogenicity before and during its decades of marketing, or that the company manipulated research findings submitted to regulators. This is not a labeling claim — it is a claim about the quality and integrity of the science the company conducted and the science it chose to share. Discovery into internal corporate communications is essential here. The internal emails, the ghostwritten studies, the scientist-to-scientist communications about what the data showed and what the company told regulators — these are the documents that proved devastating in the earlier Roundup trials, and they are the documents most at risk during a corporate restructuring.
Fraudulent concealment. If Monsanto knew glyphosate was carcinogenic and actively hid that information from the EPA, the public, and the scientific community, a fraudulent concealment theory may survive preemption because it is not about what the label said — it is about what the company did to prevent the truth from reaching the label. This theory requires proof of knowledge, concealment, and reliance — but the internal corporate record, if it survives the restructuring, is where that proof lives.
Successor liability and corporate structure challenge. The formation of Ruveon raises the question of whether Bayer is restructuring to isolate glyphosate liabilities. If Ruveon assumes the glyphosate business but not the tort liability, and if Bayer later spins off Ruveon, the question becomes whether the new entity carries the responsibility or whether it is structured to be judgment-proof. Plaintiffs’ counsel must examine whether Ruveon assumes successor liability for Monsanto’s tort exposure, whether the asset transfers are designed to shield the parent, and whether the restructuring itself is evidence of consciousness of liability.
Claims predating the SCOTUS ruling. The preemption ruling’s application to already-filed claims, claims in the settlement pipeline, and claims that were past certain procedural milestones is a complex and evolving question. The ruling’s retroactive application is not automatic — it depends on the procedural posture of each individual claim, the law of the governing jurisdiction, and the terms of any applicable settlement agreement.
The generalist lawyer, reading the headline “SCOTUS rules for Bayer,” tells the client “your case is over.” The trial attorney who understands preemption doctrine reads the same headline and starts building a complaint around the theories the ruling did not touch.
The Evidence Preservation Clock: What Corporate Restructuring Can Destroy
Corporate restructuring is the moment evidence is most at risk. When a company reorganizes, transfers assets, creates new subsidiaries, and migrates business operations, document retention policies change, data systems are reorganized, and records that existed in one corporate infrastructure may not survive the transition to another.
Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can disappear:
Internal Monsanto/Bayer corporate communications regarding glyphosate safety research. These are the documents that proved most damaging in the earlier Roundup trials — emails discussing the IARC classification, internal scientific debates about carcinogenicity, communications about regulatory strategy, and any documents showing a gap between what the company knew internally and what it represented publicly. These documents are held by Bayer and Monsanto. Corporate restructuring can trigger changes to document retention policies or data migration that complicates discovery. A litigation hold letter freezes these records — but only if it is sent before the restructuring is complete.
Regulatory submissions to the EPA regarding glyphosate carcinogenicity. These are federal records — stable, but the corporate-side correspondence with regulators may be reorganized under Ruveon. The gap between what the company told the EPA and what its own scientists said internally is the heart of a negligent testing or fraudulent concealment claim.
Ruveon formation documents, asset transfer agreements, and corporate structure filings. These are being created right now. They are the paper trail of the restructuring itself — board minutes authorizing the formation, asset transfer agreements, intellectual property assignments, insurance policy allocations, and executive communications about the purpose of the restructuring. These documents prove whether Ruveon is a genuine business reorganization or an asset-shielding vehicle. They should be preserved before any further corporate restructuring complicates the picture.
Marketing, labeling, and warning history for Roundup and glyphosate products. The product labeling history is relatively stable but may be rebranded under Ruveon. For claims that predate the SCOTUS ruling — or for design defect theories that do not depend on labeling — the historical marketing and warning record is still relevant.
The single most important step a potential claimant can take right now is to ensure that a litigation hold is in place covering all of these document categories. The preservation letter goes out the day you call — not after the restructuring is complete, not after the spin-off, not after the records have been “migrated” to a new system. The day you call.
The Medicine: Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Glyphosate
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a cancer that begins in the lymphatic system — the body’s network of lymph nodes, spleen, thymus, and bone marrow that fights infection. It occurs when white blood cells called lymphocytes develop abnormalities that make them multiply uncontrollably, crowding out healthy cells and eventually spreading through the body.
There are more than 70 subtypes of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, ranging from indolent (slow-growing) to aggressive. Treatment depends on the subtype and stage but can include chemotherapy, immunotherapy (such as monoclonal antibodies), radiation, stem cell transplant, and in some cases, CAR-T cell therapy. For aggressive subtypes, treatment is intensive and begins immediately after diagnosis. For indolent subtypes, treatment may be deferred until symptoms progress — but the cancer is generally considered incurable, requiring ongoing management for life.
The exposure-to-diagnosis timeline. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma associated with chemical exposure typically has a latency period of years to decades. A person who sprayed Roundup regularly in the 1990s or 2000s may not receive a diagnosis until the 2010s or 2020s. This latency is both a medical reality and a legal challenge — it is why the discovery rule matters for statute-of-limitations purposes, and it is why the defense will argue that the cancer was caused by something other than glyphosate exposure.
The proof problem the defense exploits. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has multiple known risk factors — age, immune system suppression, certain infections, and other chemical exposures. The defense will argue that your cancer was idiopathic (of unknown cause) or caused by something other than glyphosate. The counter requires dose reconstruction — how much Roundup you used, how often, for how long, through what route of exposure (dermal, inhalation) — and the scientific literature linking glyphosate exposure to NHL. The IARC’s Group 2A classification is the scientific anchor, but the defense will point to the EPA’s contrary position and argue the science is unsettled.
What the family observes over time. The first sign is often a painless swollen lymph node — in the neck, armpit, or groin. Then comes the fatigue, the unexplained weight loss, the night sweats, the recurring infections. By the time of diagnosis, the cancer may have spread to multiple lymph node groups or beyond. Treatment is grueling — chemotherapy cycles that last months, immunotherapy infusions, hospital stays for complications, and for some patients, a stem cell transplant that means weeks in isolation while the immune system is destroyed and rebuilt.
The long arc. Even after successful treatment, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma can recur. Survivors face lifelong monitoring, elevated risk of secondary cancers from the treatment itself, and the psychological burden of living with a disease that may come back. For families who lost someone to NHL, the damages include not just the medical bills and the lost income but the conscious pain and suffering of the disease — the months of treatment, the fear, the decline — and the loss of the person themselves.
What Your Case May Be Worth After the Preemption Ruling
Honesty about case value is not pessimism — it is the foundation of trust. Here is what the landscape looks like after the SCOTUS ruling.
The $7.3 billion aggregate settlement. This framework reflects the resolution of thousands of claims. Individual claimant values within the settlement depend on exposure history, diagnosis subtype, age at diagnosis, treatment intensity, and other factors specified in the settlement terms. If you are enrolled in the settlement, your value is governed by the settlement matrix — not by individual verdict outcomes. Confirm your enrollment and understand your options with whatever attorney is handling your claim.
Individual case values in the broader mass tort. Before the SCOTUS ruling, individual Roundup case values ranged from several hundred thousand dollars for lower-severity claims to multi-million-dollar verdicts for severe non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases with strong causation evidence. Several trial verdicts against Monsanto returned significant plaintiff awards — though some were later reduced on appeal or through post-trial settlements. The preemption ruling will materially constrain future case values by eliminating the primary litigation theory, but design defect and negligent testing theories, where viable, can still support substantial recovery.
What the preemption ruling changed. The failure-to-warn theory was the most accessible path to recovery — it required proof that the company knew of the cancer risk and failed to warn, without requiring proof that the product was inherently dangerous or that the company manipulated the science. With that theory foreclosed, the remaining theories require more complex proof: expert testimony on product design, internal corporate documents showing research manipulation, and the ability to overcome the EPA’s regulatory position on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. These cases are harder to build and more expensive to litigate — but they are not impossible, and the cases that succeed may still carry significant value.
Missouri’s damages posture. Missouri does not impose a general cap on compensatory damages in personal injury cases — which means economic damages (medical expenses, lost wages, lost earning capacity) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering, loss of quality of life) are not statutorily limited. Missouri does have statutory limitations on punitive damages — which are subject to provisions that must be confirmed for the current applicable framework. Punitive damages, where available, require a showing that the defendant acted with deliberate disregard for the safety of others — a standard that the internal corporate record may or may not satisfy depending on what discovery reveals.
For an honest assessment of what your specific situation may be worth, the question of case value depends on the specifics of your exposure, your diagnosis, your treatment, and your prognosis — and on which legal theory your case pursues.
The Defense Playbook: What Bayer’s Lawyers Will Do Next
Bayer’s litigation strategy is visible in the moves it has already made — the Supreme Court cert petition that produced the preemption ruling, the settlement framework that resolved thousands of claims, and now the Ruveon restructuring. Here is what comes next, and how each play is countered.
Play 1: “Your claim is preempted — the Supreme Court killed all Roundup cases.”
This is the headline Bayer wants every potential claimant to believe. It is an overstatement. The ruling forecloses failure-to-warn claims. It does not bar design defect, negligent testing, fraudulent concealment, or successor liability claims. The counter is a complaint built on the theories that survived — not a concession that the ruling ended the litigation.
Play 2: “The EPA says glyphosate is not carcinogenic — your cancer wasn’t caused by Roundup.”
The EPA’s regulatory position is not a finding that glyphosate is safe. It is a regulatory classification made under a specific statutory framework. The IARC — the World Health Organization’s cancer authority — reached the opposite conclusion. The defense will use the EPA’s position as a shield; the counter is the IARC classification, the peer-reviewed epidemiological literature, dose reconstruction showing significant exposure, and the internal corporate documents that may show Monsanto’s own scientists had concerns the company did not share with regulators.
Play 3: “Your non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by something else — age, genetics, other exposures.”
Alternative causation is the defense’s standard play in every toxic tort case. The counter is a treating oncologist’s testimony, exposure reconstruction, and the scientific literature linking glyphosate to NHL. The defense does not need to prove what caused your cancer — it only needs to create reasonable doubt about whether Roundup did. The plaintiff’s burden is to show that glyphosate exposure was a substantial factor in causing the disease.
Play 4: Delay through the restructuring.
While the Ruveon formation proceeds, the defense has every incentive to delay proceedings — to allow the restructuring to complete, to allow records to migrate, to allow the corporate landscape to shift in ways that make discovery harder. The counter is aggressive early discovery — preservation letters, document demands focused on the restructuring itself, and motions to compel that frame delay as a spoliation risk.
Play 5: “You are already in the settlement — you cannot pursue a separate claim.”
Whether this is true depends on whether you are actually enrolled in the $7.3 billion settlement framework, what the settlement terms say about opt-out rights or individual claims, and whether your claim falls within the settlement’s scope. Do not accept this assertion from an adjuster or a defense lawyer without confirming it with your own counsel.
How a Roundup Case Is Built Now: The Proof Story
The old roadmap — file a failure-to-warn claim, point to the IARC classification, argue the label should have carried a cancer warning — is gone for new claims. Here is what the new roadmap looks like.
Week one: the preservation letter. The day you call, a litigation hold goes out to Bayer, Monsanto, and Ruveon — demanding preservation of all corporate communications regarding glyphosate safety research, all regulatory submissions, all internal documents discussing the IARC classification or the EPA’s carcinogenicity review, all Ruveon formation and asset transfer documents, and all marketing and labeling history. This letter is not a formality — it is the document that converts routine corporate data destruction into sanctionable spoliation if the records disappear.
The exposure reconstruction. Your Roundup use history is the foundation of the case. When did you use it? How often? In what quantities? Through what route — spraying, mixing, loading? Were you a farmer, a landscaper, a groundskeeper, a homeowner? Purchase receipts, employment records, pesticide application logs, and coworker testimony all build the dose picture. The defense will argue your exposure was too low or too brief to cause cancer — the exposure reconstruction is the answer.
The medical record and expert linkage. Your NHL diagnosis, subtype, treatment history, and prognosis are established through your medical records and your treating oncologist’s testimony. An expert toxicologist or epidemiologist then links the exposure to the diagnosis — explaining how glyphosate exposure can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, what the scientific literature shows, and why your specific exposure profile is consistent with the disease.
The corporate conduct discovery. This is where the case distinguishes itself from a failure-to-warn claim. Discovery targets internal Monsanto and Bayer documents — emails, memos, internal studies, scientific reviews, regulatory strategy documents — that show what the company knew about glyphosate’s carcinogenicity, when it knew it, and what it did with that knowledge. The Ruveon restructuring adds a new discovery target: the formation documents and executive communications that reveal the purpose of the restructuring itself.
The expert testimony on alternative theories. For a design defect claim, a product safety expert testifies about whether glyphosate as formulated is unreasonably dangerous. For a negligent testing claim, a toxicologist or regulatory scientist testifies about what adequate testing would have revealed and when. For a fraudulent concealment claim, the internal documents speak for themselves — but an expert may explain the significance of what the company knew versus what it told regulators.
The damages case. A life-care planner builds the lifetime cost of your NHL — past and future medical treatment, ongoing monitoring, lost earning capacity, and the human costs the defense cannot quantify. A forensic economist reduces future costs to present value. The damages number is built from the medical record, the treatment plan, the wage history, and the life-care plan — not from a verdict in another case.
What to Do Right Now: Your First Steps
If you have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and have a history of Roundup use:
-
Get your medical records in order. Your diagnosis, pathology reports, treatment records, and prognosis are the foundation of every claim. Request complete copies from every treating physician, hospital, and cancer center. These records are yours — you have a legal right to them.
-
Document your Roundup exposure history. Write down everything you can remember — when you used Roundup, how often, how much, for how many years, in what setting (agricultural, professional landscaping, residential). Find purchase receipts, employment records, pesticide application permits, or anything that corroborates your exposure. The defense will challenge your dose — your own documentation is the first answer.
-
Confirm your settlement status. If you believe you are part of the $7.3 billion settlement framework, contact the claims administrator or the attorney who filed your claim. Get written confirmation of your enrollment status and your settlement options. If you are not enrolled, ask why and whether you can still join.
-
Talk to a qualified attorney immediately. Missouri’s statute of limitations for personal injury gives you a limited window to file — and for toxic exposure cases, that clock typically starts when you discovered or should have discovered that your illness was connected to glyphosate exposure, not when you were exposed. That window is shorter than most people think, and the SCOTUS ruling has created urgency because the legal landscape is still shifting. A free consultation costs nothing and costs you nothing if you decide not to proceed.
-
Do not sign anything from Bayer, Monsanto, Ruveon, or any claims administrator without legal review. A release is forever. A quick settlement offer that arrives before you understand the full scope of your claim is designed to close your case cheaply — not to make you whole.
If you lost a family member to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and believe Roundup exposure was the cause:
The same steps apply, but the timeline is tighter. Missouri’s wrongful-death statute of limitations runs from the date of death — and every day you wait is a day the evidence of corporate restructuring may be disappearing. A preservation letter on behalf of the estate is the first move, not the last resort.
The Firm: Who Fights for You
Ralph P. Manginello is our Managing Partner — 27+ years of trial practice, admitted in Texas since 1998, admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he learned to find the story the other side does not want told — and he learned to tell it to a jury. He handles product liability and toxic tort cases with the same preparation he brings to every catastrophic injury docket: every document demanded, every expert retained, every theory pursued until the evidence runs out or the other side pays what the case is worth.
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decide how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He sat across the table from the people who are now sitting across from you. He knows how claim valuation software works, how reserves are set in the first 48 hours, how IME doctors are selected, and how surveillance is deployed. Now he uses that knowledge for injured clients. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
We work on contingency — 33.33% before trial, 40% if the case goes to trial. We don’t get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. The call is free. And the phone is answered 24/7 by live staff, not an answering service.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. We have recovered more than $50 million for our clients across the cases we have handled — but what your case is worth depends on your exposure, your diagnosis, your treatment, and the evidence we can build.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court ruling kill all Roundup cancer lawsuits?
No. The ruling held that FIFRA — the federal pesticide labeling law — preempts state failure-to-warn claims for glyphosate because the EPA has not required a cancer warning. This forecloses the failure-to-warn theory for new claims. But design defect, negligent testing, fraudulent concealment, and successor liability theories may survive. If you already have a claim in the settlement pipeline, your case may proceed under the settlement framework regardless of the ruling.
What is Ruveon LLC and why did Bayer create it?
Ruveon LLC is a newly formed Bayer subsidiary that will oversee all aspects of Bayer’s U.S. glyphosate business — pricing, production, logistics, and go-to-market strategy. It is based in St. Louis, Missouri. Stock analysts have speculated the consolidation could position Bayer to eventually spin off or divest its glyphosate business, potentially limiting future litigation exposure. The formation raises successor liability and asset-preservation questions that demand immediate legal attention.
Am I part of the $7.3 billion Roundup settlement?
That depends on whether you filed a claim that was enrolled in the settlement framework that received preliminary approval in a Missouri circuit court in March 2026. If you believe you are enrolled, contact the claims administrator or your attorney to confirm your status in writing. If you have not filed a claim, you should consult with a qualified attorney to determine whether you can still participate or whether you need to pursue an individual claim under alternative legal theories.
Can I still sue Bayer if I used Roundup and got non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma?
Possibly — but the path is more complex than it was before the SCOTUS ruling. The failure-to-warn theory appears preempted for new claims, but alternative theories may survive. You need an attorney who understands FIFRA preemption doctrine, product liability law, and the specific evidence requirements for design defect and negligent testing claims. The consultation is free — the cost of not knowing your rights is not.
How long do I have to file a Roundup cancer claim?
Missouri’s personal-injury statute of limitations gives you a limited window to file — and for toxic exposure cases, the clock typically starts when you discovered or should have discovered that your illness was connected to glyphosate exposure. For wrongful death claims, the deadline runs from the date of death. These deadlines are unforgiving — miss them and the case is over, no matter how strong the evidence. Confirm the specific deadline for your situation with qualified counsel immediately.
What if I already signed a release or accepted a settlement offer?
A release is a permanent surrender of your right to sue. If you signed a release as part of the settlement framework, you may be bound by its terms. If you signed something presented by a claims adjuster or a company representative without independent legal counsel, you should have an attorney review the document immediately — some releases can be challenged on grounds of inadequate consideration, misrepresentation, or procedural deficiency, though the window for such challenges is short.
What evidence do I need to prove my Roundup case?
Your exposure history (when, how often, how much, and through what route you used Roundup), your medical records (diagnosis, pathology, treatment, prognosis), and any corroborating documents — purchase receipts, employment records, pesticide application logs, coworker testimony. The corporate conduct evidence — internal Monsanto and Bayer documents about glyphosate safety research — is obtained through discovery, but your personal exposure and medical evidence is yours to gather and preserve now.
Is glyphosate actually linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma?
The International Agency for Research on Cancer — the World Health Organization’s cancer authority — classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) in 2015. The U.S. EPA has maintained that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” This divergence is the scientific fault line the litigation lives on. Your case depends on presenting the scientific evidence linking your specific exposure to your specific diagnosis — which is why expert testimony and dose reconstruction are central to every claim.
What if Bayer spins off or sells Ruveon?
If Bayer divests Ruveon, the question becomes whether the new entity inherits Monsanto’s tort liability or whether the restructuring is designed to leave liability behind. Successor liability doctrine provides several paths to hold a successor entity responsible — express assumption of liability, mere continuation, consolidation or merger, or fraudulent transfer to escape liability. The Ruveon formation documents, asset transfer agreements, and executive communications are the evidence that answers this question — and they need to be preserved now, before any spin-off makes them harder to find.
How much does it cost to talk to a lawyer about my Roundup claim?
Nothing. The consultation is free. The call is free. We work on contingency — we do not get paid unless we win your case. If we are not the right fit for your situation, we will tell you. If your case has merit, we will explain exactly what comes next and what it will take to build it. Call 1-888-ATTY-911, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
I speak Spanish — can I get help in my language?
Yes. Hablamos Español. Lupe Peña is fluent in Spanish and conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. Our staff is bilingual. You do not need to navigate this in a second language.
Should I wait to see how the legal landscape settles before calling a lawyer?
No. Every day you wait, evidence is at risk. The Ruveon restructuring is actively changing the corporate landscape. Internal documents may be migrating to new systems. The legal landscape is not “settling” — it is shifting, and the claims that are built early, with preservation letters on file and evidence locked down, are the claims that survive. The call is free. The cost of waiting may be your case.
If you or someone you love used Roundup and later developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling changed the fight — but it did not end it. The Ruveon restructuring raised the stakes — but it also created new questions Bayer has to answer. The settlement framework may cover you — or it may not. You deserve to know where you stand, what your options are, and what comes next.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911 — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Free consultation. No fee unless we win your case. Hablamos Español.