A federal judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation over Syngenta corn has dismissed some claims while allowing certain others to proceed under novel theories of liability.

In an order dated Sept. 11, 2015, Judge John W. Lungstrum denied defendant Syngenta’s motion to dismiss as to several claims that would impose liability on Syngenta for harm caused to plaintiffs who did not have a contractual relationship with that company.

Other Syngenta corn claims were insufficiently pleaded, some of which Judge Lundstrum will allow to be amended within a few weeks.

Overview of Syngenta Corn Allegations

Generally, plaintiffs in the MDL claim that Syngenta improperly introduced a new strain of genetically engineered corn in a way that caused a massive drop in the price of U.S. corn, resulting in substantial financial losses throughout the corn industry.

Upon initial USDA approval in 2010, Syngenta introduced to the market a variety of corn containing the MIR162 genetic trait under the brand name Viptera. Plaintiffs say that traces of Viptera then spread through the entire U.S. corn supply.

In November 2013, Chinese officials found traces of MIR162 corn in some shipments of corn from the U.S. At the time of that discovery, Viptera had still not been approved for import into China, despite Syngenta’s having applied for import approval back in March 2010.

Chinese regulatory officials began seizing U.S. ships and containers carrying Viptera corn, then instituted a complete ban on all imports of U.S. corn. The ban stayed in place until December 2014, when Chinese officials finally approved MIR162 corn for import.

Simultaneous with the Chinese ban, the price of corn dropped substantially. Total losses to the corn industry are estimated between $1 billion and $3 billion.

Plaintiffs in the MDL now allege this drop in price was due to Syngenta’s prematurely introducing Viptera corn into the U.S. corn supply. They say that shortly after introducing Viptera, Syngenta falsely and repeatedly assured corn industry members that approval by Chinese authorities was imminent.

Judge Rejects Syngenta’s Claims

The court declined to reject plaintiffs’ claims that Syngenta owed them a particular duty of care despite the lack of a direct contractual relationship.

Syngenta cited analogous results in products liability cases over firearms, cell phones, and medications that could be used to make methamphetamine to argue that the spread of MIR162 throughout the supply chain was done by third parties and was therefore out of Syngenta control.

Judge Lundstrum disagreed, finding that Syngenta did have a duty to exercise adequate care so that its customers’ use of Viptera as intended would not expose those customers to widespread harm.

The court rejected some plainiffs’ claims of trespass to chattels that were based solely on a theory of how Syngenta’s conduct affected the corn market more generally.

The court granted these plaintiffs leave to amend their pleadings to allege specific facts that show each plaintiff’s own corn was tainted with Syngenta corn while in that plaintiff’s possession.

Similarly the court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their claims of private nuisance to show contamination specifically on those plaintiff’s own land.

Plaintiffs making claims under the Lanham Act will also get to amend their pleadings to show that Syngenta’s representations in some of its interactions with the USDA constituted advertising or promotion.