It was reported by the Australian Financial Review on Mon (21 Jan) that the CEO of German drug-maker Bayer, Werner Baumann, has been in Singapore and Australia over the past week to reassure “big investors” that his company would be able to meet its growth targets, despite facing multiple lawsuits by its subsidiary Monsanto.

In Singapore, the biggest investor of Bayer is Temasek Holdings, the national sovereign wealth fund of Singapore.

It was reported in Apr last year that Bayer sold 3.6 per cent stake to Temasek for 3 billion euros at 96.77 euros per share. The money is used as part of Bayer’s plan in a US$62.5 billion takeover of Monsanto. Together with its existing holding in Bayer, Temasek would then own about 4 percent in Bayer after the transaction. By Jun, with Temasek’s help, Bayer successfully acquired Monsanto to become the biggest seed and agricultural chemical maker in the world.

However, in Aug last year, a California court ruled against Monsanto and decided that its weed killer, “Roundup”, has indeed caused cancer in a former school groundskeeper, Mr Lee Johnson. Mr Johnson’s lawyers argued that Monsanto actually knew of the cancer risk posed by Roundup as far back as the 1970s, but failed to inform the public and instead engaged in a “deliberate effort to distort the truth” as the weed killer generated hefty returns.

The California court awarded US$289 million as damages to Mr Johnson. It was later reduced to US$78 million, and Bayer, which denies the allegations, said it would appeal the decision.

But close to 10,000 more people have also filed similar lawsuits and investors have now viewed Bayer shares as high-risk stocks they don’t want to include in their portfolios. This has made the past year one of the most difficult in Bayer Group’s 155-year history.

Bayer has shed more than 30 billion euros from its market capitalization since after losing the first lawsuit in the California court. So far, Bayer has cut huge numbers of jobs and sold off parts of the company. It even announced buying back its own shares. But none of these measures has helped to stop the free fall of its share price:

As at yesterday’s closing (22 Jan), Bayer’s share price was 65.96 euros. Since Temasek bought 3 billion euros worth of shares at 96.77 euros in Apr last year, that means it has lost 30.81 euros per share or 31.8% of the 3 billion euros investment. So, in 9 months, Temasek has lost at least 955 million euros or S$1.5 billion.

Meanwhile, Bayer CEO Baumann has signaled a more “rigorous defence” of the chemical glyphosate used in Monsanto’s weed killer in the impending lawsuits. He continued to deny that glyphosate causes cancer in those cancer sufferers who are suing Monsanto.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

大陆律师赴港“兼听”反送中 疑遭压力匆匆离港

上月中旬,一名中国律师充当公民记者,只身一人闯入香港,希望能了解香港反送中运动的缘由和当地居民的诉求,也出席建制派和民主派两边人马的集会。不过仅逗留香港第三天,相信是感受到压力,陈秋实终被迫离港。 他在8月中抵达香港,在8月17日的视频,声称观察到香港社会生活”小日子仍在继续”,依然“其乐融融”,没有受到特别影响;他也喜欢香港多元文化的生态。 他续指,内地媒体和香港媒体报导有天壤之别,例如那位眼睛被打伤的女孩,香港媒体指被警察橡皮子弹打伤;大陆媒体说她是被自己的猪队友打伤的。“可她的猪队友怎么会有枪和橡皮子弹呢?” 机场被打的的付国豪,大陆媒体说是《环球时报》记者,而香港媒体说他是“国保特工”;元朗车站拿棍打人的白衣人,大陆媒体说成是爱国青年,香港媒体则质疑他们是收了钱的黑社会。 对此,陈秋实认为,在信息杂乱的环境下,就更加需要兼听则明,偏听则暗,要收集足够多的信息进行交叉比对,才能够尽可能的还原事情的真相。 在另一视频中,他指自己出席了香港建制派和民主派的集会,并与他们当中2、30人交流,他坦言双方在观念上存在巨大冲突,但又似乎有一些共识,例如两派均认为香港依旧是安定繁荣的幸福城市。 “香港医疗、教育、养老成本仍较低” “而事实上也确实如此,香港GDP和人均福利在全亚洲仍保持领先,每年大陆外资投资当中,有50、60巴仙都是来自香港,或从香港进入大陆。” 他也解释,香港民众在医疗、教育、养老成本仍是比较低的。每年依旧有很多大陆的富豪或是中产阶级申请移民香港,或来香港生孩子、打疫苗、买保险。 大陆人经常会想什么事情都是钱、经济层面的问题,但陈秋实分析,经济型因素,在香港街头民主政治确实占一定的比例,但并不是绝对。 大陆网民揶揄香港“吃饱了撑的才搞街头民主”,对此陈秋实说:”这么理解也可以,因为香港确实已不存在吃不上饭的穷人。” 陈秋实也解释道港人抗争的背景,包括争取选举权、争取特首、议员的真正普选等。此外,有不厌其烦地在视频中,向大陆网民解释何谓“和理非”、“勇武”和“不割席”等。也透过视频向中国网民展示他在集会现场的所见所闻。…

Do the reactive and knee jerked government reactions to COVID-19 pandemic indicate a government caught off guard?

As the international media continues to cover Singapore’s fall from grace in…

人权律师挑战黄循财 辩论公共住宅本质

撰文:人权律师M Ravi(北雁翻译) 我发现政府还在宣扬,公共组屋住户就是拥有者的说法,就像拥有99年租赁权的私有公寓屋主一样,可以出售他们的租约。想请问国家发展部长黄循财,能否说清楚建屋发展局公共组屋和99年私有租赁,两者的法律含义比较? 较受全球认可的法律立场认为,公共住宅住户即使无法偿还政府或私人银行贷款,也不能扣押或拉回其住所。但为何新加坡政府可以这么做呢? 根据新加坡扣押法(Distress Act),阐明若您是向政府租赁产业,例如租组屋,政府就不能申请扣押庭令(Writ of Distress)来充公您家中或您租户的财产,或者拿来拍卖、以销售收益填补租金。 事实上,我曾在高庭援引上述法规,挑战某官联公司充公我客户价值20万元印刷器材的做法,我客户最终也成功索回这些资产。这是在官联公司推出商业租赁的情境下。 那我为何提起此事?我i知道有新加坡人失去了他们的家园和组屋,但遗憾的是很多律师不愿提起,因为他们为相关提供贷款的银行工作。 既然黄循财强调公共组屋买家不是租户,认为这“不符事实和法理”,那黄部长是否愿意针对此事进行友善的辩论– 特别是假设某人无力偿还贷款,他们的公共组屋是否会被收回?…