throbber
Case 3:20-cv-04737-RS Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 27
`
`BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
` & GROSSMANN LLP
`JONATHAN D. USLANER (Bar No. 256898)
`(jonathanu@blbglaw.com)
`2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel:
`(310) 819-3470
`Counsel for Plaintiffs City of Grand Rapids
`General Retirement System and City of Grand
`Rapids Police & Fire Retirement System
`[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04737
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF
`THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
`CLASS ACTION
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS GENERAL
`RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND CITY OF
`GRAND RAPIDS POLICE & FIRE
`RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of
`themselves and all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,
`WERNER BAUMANN, WERNER
`WENNING, LIAM CONDON, JOHANNES
`DIETSCH, and WOLFGANG NICKL,
`Defendants.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-04737
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04737-RS Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 27
`
`Plaintiffs City of Grand Rapids General Retirement System and City of Grand Rapids
`Police & Fire Retirement System (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel, allege the following
`upon information and belief, except as to those allegations concerning Plaintiffs, which are alleged
`upon personal knowledge. Plaintiffs’ information and belief are based upon, inter alia, counsel’s
`investigation, which included review and analysis of: (i) documents filed publicly by Bayer
`Aktiengesellschaft (“Bayer” or the “Company”) with the United States Securities and Exchange
`Commission (“SEC”) and other regulators; (ii) press releases, presentations, and media reports
`issued and disseminated by the Company; (iii) analyst and media reports concerning Bayer; (iv)
`transcripts of Bayer’s investor conference calls; and (v) other public information regarding the
`Company.
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`This securities class action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that
`purchased or otherwise acquired Bayer American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) between May
`23, 2016 and March 19, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The claims asserted herein are
`alleged against Bayer and certain of the Company’s current and former senior executives
`(collectively, “Defendants”), and arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
`Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.
`2.
`Headquartered in Leverkusen, Germany, Bayer is a multinational pharmaceutical
`and life science company. On May 23, 2016, Bayer announced that it had made an unsolicited all-
`cash offer to acquire Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”), a provider of agricultural chemicals and
`other products based in St. Louis, Missouri. After a protracted regulatory approval process, on
`June 7, 2018, Bayer completed its all-cash acquisition of Monsanto for $128 per share, or $63
`billion including debt (the “Acquisition”), representing a 44% premium to Monsanto’s share price
`on May 9, 2016—the day prior to Bayer’s first written proposal to acquire Monsanto.
`3.
`Before the Acquisition, Monsanto aggressively marketed and sold its flagship weed
`killer product, Roundup. Roundup is the most widely used weed killer around the world, which
`generated nearly $5 billion in annual revenue for Monsanto. The active ingredient in Roundup is
`glyphosate, a toxic chemical long suspected of causing cancer, including non-Hodgkin’s
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-04737
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04737-RS Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 27
`
`lymphoma—a lethal blood cancer.
`4.
`In March 2015, more than one year prior to Bayer’s initial May 2016 offer to
`acquire Monsanto, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”), an arm of the
`World Health Organization (“WHO”), found that there was strong evidence of an association
`between exposure to glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and concluded that glyphosate was
`“probably carcinogenic to humans.”
`5.
`In early 2016, after the IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to
`humans,” numerous lawsuits were filed against Monsanto by cancer-stricken plaintiffs, alleging
`that exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based weed killer, Roundup, had caused their cancer and
`that Monsanto failed to warn the public about the chemical’s toxic effects. One of the first
`Roundup cancer lawsuits brought against Monsanto was filed on January 26, 2016, in the Superior
`Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco. See Johnson v. Monsanto Co.,
`No. CGC-16-550128 (Cal. Super. Ct., Cnty. of S.F.) (the “Johnson Case”). Days later, on February
`1, 2016, the first federal Roundup lawsuit was filed against Monsanto in the U.S. District Court
`for the Northern District of California. See Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., No. 3:16-cv-525 (N.D.
`Cal.) (the “Hardeman Case”). Many more lawsuits followed.
`6.
`On April 8, 2016, the Judge in the Hardeman Case refused to dismiss the lawsuit,
`giving rise to a wave of new lawsuits that flooded courts across the country. In October 2016,
`after dozens more lawsuits were filed in federal courts, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
`Litigation consolidated these cases in the MDL No. 2741. These cases have been centralized in
`the Northern District of California, overseen by the Honorable Judge Vince Chhabria. See In re
`Roundup Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:16-md-2741-VC (N.D. Cal.).
`7.
`In March 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) of California—a
`large agricultural state and vast market for Monsanto’s Roundup product—adopted the IARC’s
`classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. In July 2017, the State of California added
`glyphosate to its list of chemicals known to cause cancer.
`8.
`As a result of the March 2015 WHO study classifying glyphosate as “probably
`carcinogenic to humans” and the California EPA’s classification of glyphosate as “a known
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-04737
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04737-RS Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 4 of 27
`
`carcinogen,” individuals alleging that Roundup caused personal injury, including cancer, had a
`greatly enhanced ability to sue Monsanto. These findings provided support for the causation
`element necessary for the Roundup cancer suits to succeed at trial and the number of Roundup
`lawsuits filed against Monsanto continued to surge.
`9.
`On September 14, 2016, Bayer entered into an agreement to purchase all of
`Monsanto’s shares for $128 per share, representing a 44% premium over Monsanto’s closing share
`price on May 9, 2016. Due to a lengthy regulatory approval process, the Acquisition was not
`completed until nearly two years later.
`10.
`By June 2018, when Bayer finally consummated the Acquisition, not only had
`thousands of personal injury lawsuits related to Roundup exposure been filed against Monsanto,
`but plaintiffs in several of the first Roundup cancer cases had survived motions to dismiss, obtained
`damaging discovery, and fended off challenges to expert testimony and pretrial motions. Indeed,
`around the same time, the Johnson Case was the first of the Roundup cancer cases set to go to trial.
`Despite the significant liability risks related to Monsanto’s Roundup product, Bayer forged ahead
`and acquired Monsanto for $63 billion in cash—the largest acquisition in German corporate
`history—which the Company financed, in large part, with newly assumed debt.
`11.
`Throughout the Class Period, Defendants touted the Acquisition as “a compelling
`transaction for shareholders” that would create “significant value” by generating “stronger growth,
`better profitability, and a more resilient business profile.” Defendants also highlighted that the
`combined business has “the potential to command a premium valuation” and assured investors that
`the Acquisition “will translate into attractive financial benefits for Bayer and its shareholders.”
`Defendants specifically downplayed the liability risks related to Monsanto’s Roundup product,
`emphasizing that Bayer conducted a “thorough analysis” during the due diligence process and
`“undertook appropriate due diligence of litigation and regulatory issues throughout the process”
`which led Bayer to finalize the Acquisition. These and similar statements made by Defendants
`during the Class Period were false and misleading. In truth, Defendants knew or recklessly
`disregarded that the Acquisition would not result in the benefits for Bayer that Defendants had
`represented, due to Monsanto’s significant exposure to liability risk related to Roundup. As a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-04737
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04737-RS Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 5 of 27
`
`result of Defendants’ misrepresentations, Bayer ADRs traded at artificially inflated prices during
`the Class Period.
`12.
`The truth began to emerge on August 10, 2018, when a jury in the Johnson Case
`found unanimously that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup weed killer was a “substantial
`factor” in causing the plaintiff to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that Monsanto knew, or
`should have known, the risks associated with exposure to the chemical and failed to warn of this
`severe health hazard. The jury also found that Monsanto acted with “malice or oppression” and
`should be punished for its conduct. Accordingly, the jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39 million in
`compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages. On this news, the price of Bayer
`ADRs declined over 11%, from $26.59 per ADR to $23.59 per ADR.
`13.
`On October 22, 2018, although the court in the Johnson Case reduced the award of
`punitive damages from $250 million to $39 million to match the compensatory damages awarded
`to the plaintiff, the court otherwise denied Monsanto’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the
`verdict and Monsanto’s motion for a new trial, and upheld the jury’s verdict, ruling that “there is
`no legal basis to disturb the jury’s determination that plaintiff’s exposure to [glyphosate-based
`herbicides] was a substantial factor in causing his [non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma].” On this news, the
`price of Bayer ADRs declined nearly 9%, from $22.00 per ADR to $20.10 per ADR.
`14.
`Then, on March 19, 2019, a jury in the Hardeman Case—the first federal Roundup
`cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial—issued a verdict on causation in phase one of the bifurcated
`trial, finding that plaintiff’s “exposure to Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his non-
`Hodgkin’s lymphoma.” On this news, the price of Bayer ADRs declined over 9%, from $19.67
`per ADR to $17.85 per ADR.
`II.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`15.
`The claims asserted herein arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
`Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. §
`240.10b-5). This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`§§ 1331 and 1337, and Section 27 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78aa).
`16.
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act (15
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-04737
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04737-RS Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 6 of 27
`
`U.S.C. § 78aa) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Bayer transacts business in California, including in this
`District. In connection with the acts alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, directly or indirectly,
`used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including, but not limited to, the
`mails, interstate telephone communications, and the facilities of the national securities markets. In
`addition, related actions filed against Monsanto in connection with its glyphosate-based herbicide
`Roundup have been consolidated and are currently pending in this District. The Judicial Panel on
`Multidistrict Litigation selected the Northern District of California as the appropriate transferee
`district for these cases because “[t]wo of the earliest-filed and most procedurally advanced actions
`are pending in this district” and the Northern District of California “is both convenient and easily
`accessible for all parties . . . and has the necessary judicial resources and expertise to efficiently
`manage this litigation.” See Transfer Order at 2, In re Roundup Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 16-md-
`2741-VC (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 1; see also Hardeman, No. 3:16-cv-525.
`III.
`PARTIES
`17.
`Plaintiffs are public pension funds that provide retirement and other benefits to
`active and retired public employees, police officers, and firefighters in the City of Grand Rapids,
`Michigan. As indicated on the certifications submitted herewith, Plaintiffs purchased Bayer ADRs
`at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and suffered damages as a result of the
`violations of the federal securities laws alleged herein.
`18.
`Defendant Bayer is a multinational pharmaceutical and life science company.
`Incorporated under the laws of Germany, the Company maintains its corporate headquarters in
`Leverkusen, Germany. As explained on Bayer’s website, ADRs “are a U.S. dollar-denominated
`form of equity ownership in a non-U.S. company” and “are an instrument used widely by non-
`U.S. companies to offer and trade their shares conveniently and efficiently in the U.S. equity
`markets.” Bayer ADRs represent Bayer ordinary shares and as of September 20, 2017, when Bayer
`performed an ADR ratio change, four Bayer ADRs correspond to one Bayer ordinary share. Bayer
`ADRs are registered by Bayer with the SEC on Form F-6 and are issued by a U.S. bank, The Bank
`of New York Mellon, acting as depositary. Since September 27, 2007, Bayer ADRs have traded
`in the U.S. over-the-counter market under ticker symbol “BAYRY.”
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-04737
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04737-RS Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 7 of 27
`
`Defendant Werner Baumann (“Baumann”) has served as Bayer’s Chief Executive
`19.
`Officer and Chairman of the Company’s Board of Management since May 1, 2016.
`20.
`Defendant Werner Wenning (“Wenning”) served as the Chairman of Bayer’s
`Supervisory Board from October 1, 2012 until April 28, 2020.
`21.
`Defendant Liam Condon (“Condon”) has served as President of Bayer’s Crop
`Science Division and a member of the Company’s Board of Management since January 1, 2016.
`22.
`Defendant Johannes Dietsch (“Dietsch”) served as Bayer’s Chief Financial Officer
`(“CFO”) from October 1, 2014 until May 31, 2018, and as a member of the Company’s Board of
`Management from September 1, 2014 until May 31, 2018.
`23.
`Defendant Wolfgang Nickl (“Nickl”) has served as Bayer’s CFO since June 1,
`2018, and as a member of the Company’s Board of Management since April 26, 2018.
`24.
`Defendants Baumann, Wenning, Condon, Dietsch, and Nickl are collectively
`referred to hereinafter as the “Individual Defendants.” The Individual Defendants, because of their
`positions with Bayer, possessed the power and authority to control the contents of the Company’s
`reports, press releases, and presentations to securities analysts, money and portfolio managers, and
`institutional investors. Each of the Individual Defendants was provided with copies of the
`Company’s reports, presentations, and press releases alleged herein to be misleading prior to, or
`shortly after, their issuance and had the ability and opportunity to prevent their issuance or cause
`them to be corrected. Because of their positions and access to material non-public information
`available to them, each of the Individual Defendants knew that the adverse facts specified herein
`had not been disclosed to, and were being concealed from, the public, and that the positive
`representations which were being made were then materially false and/or misleading.
`IV.
`BACKGROUND
`25.
`In March 2015, more than one year prior to Bayer’s May 2016 initial offer to
`acquire Monsanto, the WHO classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s flagship
`weed killer product, Roundup, as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
`26.
`In early 2016, there was a surge of personal injury lawsuits filed against Monsanto
`by individuals alleging that Roundup had caused their cancer.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-04737
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04737-RS Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 8 of 27
`
`27. When Bayer completed its acquisition of Monsanto in June 2018, the Company
`faced thousands of personal injury lawsuits relating to Roundup exposure and plaintiffs in several
`of the first of these cases had already survived motions to dismiss, obtained damaging discovery,
`and fended off challenges to expert testimony and pretrial motions.
`V.
`DEFENDANTS’ MATERIALLY FALSE AND MISLEADING
`STATEMENTS CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL LOSSES TO INVESTORS
`
`The Class Period begins on May 23, 2016, when the Company issued a press release
`28.
`announcing that Bayer had made an unsolicited all-cash offer to acquire Monsanto for $122 per
`share, representing a 37% premium over Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016—the day
`before Bayer presented its first written offer to Monsanto. The press release described the
`Acquisition as having “[c]ompelling value-creation potential” and touted it as a “compelling
`opportunity to create a global agriculture leader.” In the press release, Defendant Baumann is
`quoted as saying that the Acquisition would generate “substantial value” for Bayer’s shareholders.
`29.
`That same day, the Company held two investor conference calls to discuss its offer
`to acquire Monsanto. During the first conference call, Defendant Baumann stated that “we expect
`to create substantial value for our shareholders” and described Monsanto as “an extraordinary fit
`and a major advance for us.” Defendant Dietsch stated that the Acquisition “would have a positive
`impact on our earnings and margin development” and “we are convinced that the combined
`business should be able to claim a premium valuation.” In discussing the merits of the transaction,
`Defendant Baumann described the Acquisition as “a highly attractive value proposition” that
`would allow Bayer to “tap into opportunities to drive further growth and an even better financial
`profile.” Defendant Baumann described the Acquisition as having “superior value creation
`potential” and stated that “it’s actually very difficult to see something that is similarly attractive,
`as we see here, with the proposed acquisition of Monsanto.” Defendant Condon stated that “there’s
`a tremendous opportunity in here to create additional value, which is beyond what we can create
`purely by ourselves.” In response to an analyst’s question regarding the potential non-renewal of
`glyphosate’s license in Europe due to concerns over health risks associated with exposure to the
`chemical and whether that posed a material risk to the Acquisition, Defendant Baumann stated “as
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-04737
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04737-RS Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 9 of 27
`
`you would expect us to do, we have looked at it. We do understand the risk and the exposure that
`does exist” and “[i]t would not affect the overall offer and proposal to acquire Monsanto.”
`30.
`During the second conference call held later that day, Defendant Baumann stated
`that “[f]ollowing thorough consideration and preparation, we strongly believe that it is actually the
`combination of the two businesses that captures best the inherent value, and we are fully committed
`to pursuing the transaction.” Defendant Dietsch stated that “this combination will bring significant
`short and long-term benefits to farmers across the globe; and, they will translate into attractive
`financial benefits for Bayer and its shareholders.”
`31.
`On July 14, 2016, Bayer issued a press release announcing that the Company had
`increased its all-cash offer to purchase Monsanto from $122 per share to $125 per share,
`representing a 40% premium over Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016. The press
`release stated that “[t]he revised offer retains compelling value creation potential for Bayer
`shareholders” and “fully captures the intrinsic value of Monsanto, and shares the synergy benefits
`that the combination would create.”
`32.
`On July 27, 2016, Bayer held a conference call with analysts and investors to
`discuss the Company’s financial results for the second quarter of 2016. During the call, Defendant
`Baumann emphasized that “there is very, very sound logic and rationale for looking at a significant
`capital deployment into the acquisition of Monsanto versus doing something different, either in
`consumer or in pharma.”
`33.
`On September 14, 2016, the Company issued a press release announcing that Bayer
`and Monsanto had signed a definitive merger agreement under which Bayer would acquire
`Monsanto for $128 per share in an all-cash transaction, representing a 44% premium to Monsanto’s
`closing share price on May 9, 2016. The press release stated that Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto
`“represents a major step forward for our Crop Science business and reinforces Bayer’s leadership
`position as a global innovation driven Life Science company with leadership positions in its core
`segments, delivering substantial value to shareholders, our customers, employees and society at
`large.” The press release also stated that “[b]eyond the attractive long term value creation potential
`of the combination, Bayer expects the transaction to provide its shareholders with accretion to core
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-04737
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04737-RS Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 10 of 27
`
`EPS (earnings per share) in the first full year after closing and a double-digit percentage accretion
`in the third full year.” In the press release, Defendant Baumann is quoted as saying “I am
`convinced that Monsanto will flourish as part of one of the most respected and trusted companies
`in the world.”
`That same day, Bayer and Monsanto held a joint investor conference call to discuss
`34.
`the signing of the merger agreement. During the call, Defendant Baumann stated “[t]his
`transaction is a compelling opportunity for the shareholders of both companies. Following receipt
`of additional information and thorough analysis conducted during the due diligence process, we
`have raised our initial offer and have agreed on an all cash consideration of $128.00 per Monsanto
`share, representing a premium of 44% to the Monsanto share price of $89.03 on May 9, 2016, the
`day prior to our first proposal.”
`35.
`Also during the call, Defendant Baumann emphasized that “[i]n combining Bayer
`and Monsanto, we will create a global leader in the agricultural industry” and “we expect to create
`significant value for our shareholders.” Defendant Baumann further touted the Acquisition as “an
`extraordinary fit and a major advance for us,” emphasizing that “[b]oth Monsanto and we at Bayer
`are absolutely convinced that this combination of our two complementary businesses has a
`compelling logic and creates value in a major way for all constituencies.” Defendant Baumann
`described the Acquisition as “a synergistic case which has the potential to achieve a premium
`valuation based on our improved profitability, strong earnings accretion, and enhanced earnings
`growth” and “[o]verall, we believe that this is a highly value accretive transaction which benefits
`not only the shareholders but also our customers, employees, and all stakeholders involved.”
`During the call, Defendant Dietsch stated that “[t]he combination of Bayer and Monsanto
`represents an attractive value equation opportunity” and “[t]he combined [agriculture] business is
`a premium asset which has the potential to command a premium valuation.” Defendant Dietsch
`also stated that “[w]e expect significant near term synergy potential and, in addition, substantially
`longer term synergies from integrated solutions” and “[a]s a result, we expect stronger growth,
`better profitability, and a more resilient business profile.”
`36.
`On October 26, 2016, Bayer issued a press release announcing its financial results
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-04737
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04737-RS Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 11 of 27
`
`for the third quarter of 2016. In the press release, Defendant Baumann is quoted as saying that the
`Acquisition is “a major strategic milestone for Bayer” and “[t]he two companies are a perfect fit
`and complement each other ideally.”
`37.
`On February 22, 2017, Bayer issued a press release announcing its financial results
`for fiscal year 2016. In the press release, Defendant Baumann is quoted as saying “[t]his
`transaction is the perfect fit for our strategy of seeking leadership positions with our Life Science
`activities in attractive, innovation-driven markets” and “[o]nce the businesses have been
`combined, Bayer would be able to create substantial additional value in the long term through
`more innovation, stronger growth and greater efficiency.”
`38.
`On April 28, 2017, Bayer held its annual shareholders’ meeting. During the
`meeting, Defendant Baumann stated that “through the transaction, we intend to create substantial
`additional value in the long term for the company, for you, our shareholders, and the society as a
`whole.” Defendant Baumann also stated that “[t]he acquisition of Monsanto is the perfect fit for
`our strategy of aspiring to occupy leadership positions with our Life Science businesses in
`attractive, innovation-driven markets. And we are convinced that together with Monsanto, we will
`be able to create substantial added value in the long term through more innovation, stronger growth
`and greater efficiency.” During the meeting, Defendant Baumann downplayed the negative
`perception of Monsanto, stating that “[w]e are, of course, aware that Monsanto does not have a
`good reputation in some countries, especially in Europe. And you can argue about whether the
`company has always acted wisely in its dealings with the public. However, that’s not the Monsanto
`we know at all. Monsanto is a modern, highly innovative and extremely well-managed biotech
`company.” During the meeting, Defendant Wenning assured investors that Bayer’s “Supervisory
`Board fulfilled its supervisory and consultative duties in relation to this transaction in a very
`thorough and exhaustive manner,” emphasizing that “[a]ll of the essential aspects . . . [were]
`scrutinized and reviewed by us in detail and are supported by us unreservedly.”
`39.
`That same day, Bayer also issued a press release regarding its annual shareholders’
`meeting. The press release stated that the Acquisition would “create substantial additional value”
`for Bayer’s shareholders. In the press release, Defendant Baumann is quoted as saying that “[t]he
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-04737
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04737-RS Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 12 of 27
`
`acquisition of Monsanto is the perfect fit for our strategy” and “[t]ogether with Monsanto, we will
`be able to create substantial additional value in the long term through more innovation, stronger
`growth and greater efficiency.”
`40.
`On July 27, 2017, Bayer held a conference call with analysts and investors to
`discuss the Company’s financial results for the second quarter of 2017. During the call, in response
`to an analyst’s question about the Company’s level of comfort with the due diligence Bayer
`performed in connection with the Acquisition, Defendant Baumann assured investors that “the
`Monsanto people went out of their way to provide us with transparency, data and visibility to the
`most critical questions we had that also related to value and the composition of our business case
`because they wanted to convince us to pay a higher price compared to what was on the table” and
`emphasized that “we have a very high level of comfort” on Bayer’s due diligence.
`41.
`On May 25, 2018, Bayer held its annual shareholders’ meeting. During the
`meeting, despite mounting Roundup cancer lawsuits against Monsanto, Defendant Baumann
`assured investors that “[t]he acquisition is just as attractive today as we assessed it to be 2 years
`ago” and “this acquisition has very great potential for creating value for our company, our
`shareholders and our customers.” Defendant Baumann also stated that “[w]ithout question, the
`acquisition of Monsanto has extended our position in the agricultural sector” and further
`emphasized the acquisition as “a very important and logical step in the evolution of Bayer.”
`42.
`That same day, Bayer issued a press release regarding its annual shareholders’
`meeting. In the press release, Defendant Baumann is quoted as saying that “[v]iewed from various
`aspects and overall, I’m convinced that this acquisition has very great potential for creating value
`for our company, our stockholders and our customers.”
`43.
`On June 4, 2018, Bayer issued a press release announcing that the Company had
`received all the required regulatory approvals to move forward with the Acquisition and Bayer
`expected to complete its purchase of Monsanto on June 7, 2018. In the press release, Defendant
`Baumann is quoted as saying that “[t]he acquisition of Monsanto is a strategic milestone in
`strengthening our portfolio of leading businesses in health and nutrition. We will double the size
`of our agriculture business and create a leading innovation engine in agriculture, positioning us to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-04737
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04737-RS Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 13 of 27
`
`better serve our customers and unlock the long-term growth potential in the sector.” The press
`release also quotes Defendant Baumann as saying “[t]he acquisition is anticipated to generate
`significant value” and “Bayer expects a positive contribution to core earnings per share starting in
`2019” and “[f]rom 2021 onward, that contribution is expected to be double-digit percentage.” In
`the press release, Defendant Baumann emphasized that “[w]e have diligently prepared for the
`upcoming integration over the past two years” and “[o]ur extensive experience in integrating other
`large companies has proven that we can and will be successful.”
`44.
`On June 7, 2018, Bayer issued a press release announcing the completion of the
`Acquisition. In the press release, Defendant Baumann is quoted as saying “[t]oday is a great day
`. . . for our shareholders, because this transaction has the potential to create significa

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket