The gross losses of monsanto could be profitably shifted to the germans
About 13.400 lawsuits are pending in the u.S. Against monsanto, the chemical company acquired by bayer; only three verdicts have been handed down; in the last one, the jury awarded two billion dollars in damages to the plaintiffs, who are suffering from cancer. The leverkusen-based company seems to be on the brink of collapse, its stock value has halved, the share price is plummeting, and the board of management has just been denied discharge at the stockholders’ meeting.
How long ceo werner baumann will be allowed to stay in his post is still in the stars, as is whether bayer will survive the purchase of monsanto. And then? Will the german government, which celebrated the takeover, consider the traditional german company – which emerged from ig farben – to be "too big to fail" and bail it out with billions of taxpayers’ money?
Normally, every company, including bayer, has provisions that, incidentally, have been set up with tax advantages. They are insured and reinsured against claims for damages. But there are cases where these safeguards are not sufficient. For example, the reserves of the japanese energy company tecpo were not sufficient after the fukushima nuclear power plant accident. In japan, the taxpayer was asked to foot the bill. And in germany, too, the merkel government had bailed out the banks with billions – instead of sticking to the shareholders’ assets.
When bayer ag became the owner of monsanto in june 2018, there was talk of a historic deal "historic deal". And obviously the german managers were proud as punch. Every schoolchild had been warned against the takeover of the company that, like no other in the world, is held responsible for the death of bees, cancer and the contamination of entire regions. Why monsanto of all companies?
Bayer had been able to cherry-pick patents, markets, some divisions and transfer the rest to a third company – a kind of "bad bank" – which could then confidently file for bankruptcy in the u.S. Bayer could have at least moved its headquarters to germany after the purchase, in order to prevent the plaintiffs from taking legal action in the usa in the future. None of this was done, but instead all the risks were imposed on the company. Original soundtrack christian maertin, head of communications at bayer:
When a company takes over 100 percent of another company, it naturally ames both the opportunities and the risks along with it. Or what would be your idea to whom we could transfer the liability if necessary?. We could hand over the liability?
Documentary film by gaby weber: how monsanto rolled its risks onto bayer
Bayer is therefore liable for all obligations and for all pending and future claims for damages. Maertin did not want to hand over the merger agreement, saying that it was "confidential". I have published it on my homepage. This shows that bayer has not contractually protected itself against any litigation risks. Monsanto merely asserted that it had always complied with all regulatory requirements. Quote:
There are no pending or known to the company threatened civil, criminal or administrative proceedings, suits, claims, hearings, arbitrations, investigations or legal proceedings before any governmental entity to which the company or any of its subsidiaries is a party, nor any action on the part of any governmental entity against or concerning the company or its subsidiaries that there is reasonable cause to believe, individually or in the aggregate, may have a material adverse effect.
Under terms such as "reasonable cause" and "significant negative impact" can be understood all possible. The warnings of scientists and environmental groups were certainly no "reasonable reasons".
What is certain is that the merger benefited one person in particular, who is the main shareholder in both bayer and monsanto, as well as in the competitor, the two major us chemical companies dupont and dow, the asset manager blackrock. "He was on both sides of the negotiating table and made money from the negotiations", says axel kohler-schnurra of the "coordination against bayer dangers" (cbg). "They have earned a three-digit million amount just by speculating on the share price."
Blackrock is the world’s largest asset manager and has invested in more than 17.000 companies. No one knows exactly, because they often buy below the legal reporting requirements and operate through dummy companies.
In the merger agreement, which, as i said, bayer wants to keep under wraps, there is an interesting note. "The merger agreement will be signed at 9 a.M. In the office of the sullivan lawyers cromwell, new york, held." sullivan cromwell? Obviously, the contractors have a sense of tradition, but not exactly democratic tradition.
In 1927, standard oil, once founded by john d. Rockefeller, and the german ig farben, the world’s largest chemical company at the time "standard ig colors" founded. The us general president of ig farben was john forster dulles, a lawyer with sullivan cromwell and later u.S. Attorney general. His half-brother allan dulles, the longtime head of the cia, also worked at the firm. Sullivan cromwell represented u.S. Companies that had invested in the german reich – general motors, ford, ibm. German investors in the united states also feared that, in the event of a declaration of war as a "enemy property" to be seized and looked for straw men.
The sullivan advocates cromwell were experts. With them ran the thread of the "america first committee" that wanted to prevent the u.S. From entering the war. The slogan "america first" is therefore not an invention of the current us president.
The cbg network had tried to prevent the takeover by the antitrust authorities in brussels. But these waved off, according to jan pehrke. "They only look at the individual markets to see if there is any gross overlap." monsanto has been selling poisons of all kinds around the planet for decades and has made astronomical profits. Will the losses now be absorbed under the motto "america first" to the germans – again profitably?
I have sued bayer ag before the regional court of koln – for handing over the due diligence report, which calculates the risks of a company takeover. I lost in the first instance. At best, the shareholders, but not the public, have a right to this information, the koln judges said. The case is pending.
In parallel, i have submitted a request to the federal ministry of economics for information on how the government has assessed these risks. For a fee of 90 euros, i received 19 pages after half a year. The honest answer was that they had not examined whether the fusion "in the free economy makes sense from an economic point of view" and whether "possible legal risks" risks (see the documentary film by gaby weber: "money or money"). The only "political assessment", made by the federal ministry of economics is bayer’s filed press statement.
The grunen had criticized the merger in committee on the grounds of environmental protection and food safety, but unfortunately did not ask whether big money was trying to roll the litigation risks of an infamous u.S. Corporation onto the germans here. The left-wing party also seems to no longer remember what it once "imperialism" called.
Gaby weber reports since the middle of the 80’s from sudamerica and sues since approximately this time against national authorities because of requirement for information (bnd, bfv, kanzleramt etc.).). Now weber wants to extend that claim to the private companies, which is legally very complicated and financially costly. Gaby weber asks for support through donations ([email protected]) in the case of monsanto.