Bayer’s Pipeline Push Meets a Judicial Crossroads as Supreme Court Weighs Glyphosate Fate

Bayer awaits Supreme Court decision on glyphosate liability, while advancing a $2.45B eye drug deal and filing for stroke drug asundexian amid heavy debt and legal costs.

The US Supreme Court is poised to release its next tranche of opinions today, and Bayer’s shareholders are holding their breath. At the centre of the docket sits Durnell — a case that could either defuse the bulk of the roughly 65,000 outstanding glyphosate claims or keep the legal firestorm burning. The question before the justices: can state-law verdicts hold a company liable for a product that the federal Environmental Protection Agency has deemed safe? A ruling in Bayer’s favour would wipe away most of those suits. An adverse outcome leaves the litigation machine running.

Yet even as the courtroom drama reaches its crescendo in Washington, the Leverkusen-based group has been quietly assembling a counter-narrative — one built on pharmaceutical substance rather than legal defence.

A $300m Bet on the Eye

On 17 June, Bayer announced it had completed the acquisition of Perfuse Therapeutics, paying $300m upfront. The deal could swell to $2.45bn if all clinical and commercial milestones are hit. What Bayer gets in return is full global rights to PER-001, an intraocular implant currently in Phase II testing for glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy — two indications where the German giant already holds deep expertise.

That move came hot on the heels of a separate regulatory milestone. The European Medicines Agency has validated Bayer’s marketing application for asundexian, a Factor XIa inhibitor designed to prevent ischaemic stroke in high-risk patients. In the Phase III OCEANIC-STROKE trial, the drug cut the risk of a repeat stroke by 26% against placebo. It is the first filing of its kind in Europe, and both China and the US have already granted priority review. A decision from the EMA is expected within 12 to 18 months.

Asundexian is no mere pipeline filler. The drug is being groomed to replace Xarelto, Bayer’s former blockbuster that saw its revenues collapse by a third to $2.6bn after losing patent protection. Crucially, Bayer holds the full commercial rights to asundexian in the US — a sharp contrast to the revenue-sharing arrangement that capped Xarelto’s profitability.

A Balance Sheet Under Siege

None of this operational progress, however, can mask the financial haemorrhage. In the first quarter alone, Bayer burned through €2.32bn in net cash, with roughly €2bn consumed by settlements for glyphosate and PCB lawsuits. Net debt climbed to €32.5bn by the end of March, and management has guided for total legal costs of around €5bn for the full year. Free cash flow remains deeply negative.

Against that backdrop, the group appointed Judith Hartmann as chief financial officer on 1 June, replacing Wolfgang Nickl. Hartmann, who previously served as CFO at Bertelsmann and deputy CEO at ENGIE, inherits a company that has slashed its management layers by half and cut thousands of jobs. The dividend for 2025 has already been pared back to just €0.11 per share.

The stock has been hovering near the €37.50–€37.75 range, just below its 50-day moving average of €37.92. While the shares are up 5.07% over the past seven trading sessions, they remain a long way from the 52-week high of roughly €50. On a year-to-date basis, the price has drifted slightly lower, and the market’s initial euphoria from earlier in 2025 has largely dissipated.

Substance vs. Sentiment

Bayer is not a classic turnaround story — the weight of legal liabilities makes that label premature. But the Perfuse acquisition and the regulatory push for asundexian demonstrate that the company is capable of generating genuine pharmaceutical value, not merely managing litigation. The danger remains that the €5bn in expected legal payouts this year will eat up any operational gains before they can lift the shares.

For now, the balance between courtroom risk and pipeline promise is as finely poised as ever. Today’s Supreme Court ruling could tilt the scales decisively in either direction.