The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld a settlement agreement related to attorneys’ fees in a lawsuit concerning genetically modified (GMO) corn. The lawsuit, involving Syngenta AG, centered on the release of GMO seeds in China before regulatory approval, which led to U.S. corn producers being excluded from the Chinese market. Numerous lawsuits were consolidated in multidistrict litigation before the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, resulting in a $1.51 billion settlement.
Following the settlement, $503 million in attorneys’ fees were allocated, with four pools established. Three pools corresponded to common benefit work for each state involved, while the fourth was for attorneys representing individual clients. The allocation plan faced challenges from several firms, leading to a series of appeals.
In one of these appeals, Watts Guerra LLP reached an agreement to end litigation over their fees. Under this agreement, Watts Guerra would receive $7 million from the common benefit pools, funded by a reduction in other firms’ awards. However, firms with pending appeals and those challenging the settlement agreement were not required to contribute to this fund.
The Tenth Circuit determined that objecting firms lacked standing to challenge the settlement agreement because their fees would not be affected by the agreement with Watts Guerra. Judge Jerome A. Holmes emphasized that rescinding Watts Guerra’s fees wouldn’t impact the objecting firms’ fees, thus they hadn’t suffered an injury granting them standing.
The court also rejected the argument that objecting firms suffered a procedural injury, stating that without a concrete prejudice, procedural injury alone was insufficient for standing. Moreover, since the Tenth Circuit had affirmed the allocation orders, many arguments against them were deemed “stale.”
The ruling deferred decisions on appeals related to the portion of funds for attorneys representing individual clients. Judges Robert E. Bacharach and Carolyn B. McHugh joined in the opinion. Watts Guerra was represented by MoloLamken LLP. The case is Shields Law Group LLC v. Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, 10th Cir., No. 21-03021, decided on March 11, 2024.
Get more policy and market updates that can impact your bottom line, start a Pro Farmer trial today.
