The massive nationwide litigation over Syngenta’s Viptera corn was the subject of a large number of farm news articles this year. And with potentially billions of dollars at stake, it’s not hard to understand why.

Members from every part of the corn producing and shipping industries have filed claims over Syngenta’s MIR162 corn variety, sold under the brand name Viptera. Generally, the plaintiffs in these Syngenta lawsuits alleged that Syngenta misled them into believing that approval of MIR162 by Chinese officials was just around the corner. Plaintiffs said they relied on this assurance in continuing to buy, plant and handle Viptera corn.

But when Chinese officials found traces of Viptera in a shipment of U.S. corn before they had approved that strain for import, they banned all imports of U.S. corn for over a year. Plaintiffs allege this ban cost the U.S. corn industry an estimated $1 billion to $3 billion.

The top farm articles from 2015 tracked the progress of this litigation.

Top Syngenta Corn Farming Articles

Syngenta corn lawsuits began funneling into the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in early 2015, following the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s order establishing a Syngenta multidistrict litigation there. The order transferred 177 pending Syngenta corn lawsuits to that court and allowed for all future federal Syngenta lawsuits to be transferred into that multidistrict litigation, or MDL.

By February 2015, the number of Syngenta lawsuits had grown to over 360, and Syngenta class action lawsuits were being pursued by corn industry members from twenty different states, representing 86 percent of the corn-producing area of the U.S.

Some plaintiffs who preferred to litigate on their home turf tried to keep their Viptera lawsuits out of the MDL in Kansas City. But Syngenta argued that the Viptera lawsuits implicated sovereign actions taken by the Chinese government and therefore raised questions of federal law that put jurisdiction in the federal court system. This argument failed in at least two of the biggest Viptera lawsuits, brought by agricultural conglomerates Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland.

By March 2015, the overall number of Syngenta corn lawsuits in both state and federal court had grown to over 1,500, most of them consolidated into the MDL in Kansas City.

By the time depositions began in the summer of 2015, the number of Syngenta lawsuits in the MDL had grown to more than 10,000. Producers of grain sorghum, also known as milo, also joined the fray, alleging China had also refused to import their milo.

Confusion arose that summer when one plaintiff claimed to have reached a settlement with Syngenta, a claim the company staunchly denied. Whatever the truth was, no terms of any settlement agreement were disclosed.

Most recently, Syngenta says it plans to appeal a decision by the judge overseeing the Syngenta MDL that could be a major breakthrough in the plaintiffs’ cases. The ruling by Judge John W. Lungstrum left the door open for application of a novel theory of law that could impose liability on Syngenta for harming certain plaintiffs that did not have any direct contractual relationship with Syngenta.

As the year ends, the Syngenta MDL continues to proceed. The action is titled In re: Syngenta Ag MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL no. 2591.

Top Class Actions will continue to share new farm news articles as the Syngenta corn litigation continues.