A federal judge has sent two major Syngenta corn lawsuits back to the state courts in which they were filed.

Plaintiffs Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland, or ADM, had originally sued Swiss agricultural company Syngenta AG over the effects of a ban by the Chinese government on all imports of U.S. corn.

In the order filed in May 2015, Judge John W. Lungstrum determined that neither Cargill’s nor ADM’s Syngenta GMO corn lawsuits raised any substantial question of federal law that would create federal court jurisdiction.

Cargill and ADM had originally filed their Syngenta GMO corn lawsuits in Louisiana state court, alleging claims only under state law. Syngenta had these lawsuits moved to federal court in Kansas, where a multidistrict litigation over the same events is already underway.

Syngenta argued that since both corn lawsuits implicated an action by a foreign government, they raised issues of federal law under the federal common law of foreign relations, creating jurisdiction in the federal court system.

Judge Lungstrum determined that the Chinese government’s participation in the events that led to the litigation did not by itself create federal causes of action where the plaintiffs had pleaded only state claims. Therefore, he concluded, there was no federal jurisdiction in Cargill’s or ADM’s claims.

Those two Syngenta corn lawsuits will now return to Louisiana state court. The plaintiffs’ attorneys say the order gives them an advantage by forcing Syngenta to defend in both state and federal courts.

ADM is the largest corn processor in the world. Cargill is the largest closely-held company in the United States.

The Chinese Ban on U.S. Corn

Cargill and ADM are two of more than 1,800 plaintiffs, who have filed Syngenta lawsuits over the 2013-2014 ban by China on imports of U.S. corn. The plaintiffs are made up of farmers, exporters, and other agricultural companies with interests in the U.S. corn industry.

According to plaintiffs, the trouble started in 2010 when Syngenta told its customers that Chinese officials were soon to approve imports of Syngenta’s new strain of genetically modified corn known as MIR162 or Viptera. The plaintiffs allege this assurance led them to invest in growing and handling Viptera corn despite China’s then-existing zero-tolerance policy for genetically modified corn imports.

Despite Syngenta’s assurances, years went by without Chinese approval of Viptera. In 2013, with Viptera still not approved for import, Chinese inspectors discovered traces of Viptera in a shipment of U.S. corn. The Chinese government responded by banning all imports of U.S. corn. Plaintiffs now allege this loss of the Chinese corn market caused a drop in the price of corn that resulted in severe business losses.

Syngenta maintains that all these plaintiffs’ claims are without merit. They argue that the price of corn was already on the way down prior to the Chinese ban. They also allege that the Chinese government imposed the ban because of that country’s own oversupply, not because of the discovery of Viptera. Syngenta has created a website to support its arguments.

The Syngenta GMO Corn Lawsuit MDL is Case No. 14-md-2591-JWL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.