The Lacuna Project

lacuna (n.) a gap in a record where something should be

Independent research. Not affiliated with any government, agency, or company.

Company

Monsanto Company

Findings that rest on exhibits naming this entity

  • AGR-5.11: In 2017 and 2018 antitrust agencies cleared ChemChina-Syngenta, Dow-DuPont and Bayer-Monsanto only with divestitures. DOJ called the roughly $9 billion Bayer divestiture to BASF the largest merger divestiture ever required by the United States.
  • AGR-5.12: No retrospective study of the Bayer-Monsanto divestiture's effect on competition has been located.
  • AGR-5.14: The Supreme Court held unanimously in Bowman v. Monsanto (2013) that patent exhaustion does not let a farmer reproduce patented seed by planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission. The FTC and five states sued Deere in January 2025 alleging it withheld repair tools, and in July 2026 filed a proposed settlement requiring Deere to give farmers and independent repair shops the repair resources it gives dealers for ten years.
  • AGR-5.18: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust reported 500,000 Monsanto shares in each quarterly Form 13F from June 2010 through September 2011, 0.2 percent of the value of the positions it listed at June 30, 2010.

Exhibits naming this entity

  • Exhibit 634 29 May 2018. DOJ Antitrust Division: Justice Department Secures Largest Merger Divestiture Ever to Preserve Competition Threatened by Bayer's Acquisition of Monsanto (Press Release 18-698)
  • Exhibit 635 4 February 2019. DOJ Antitrust Division: United States v. Bayer AG et al.; Response to Public Comments (84 FR 1493)
  • Exhibit 637 13 May 2013. Supreme Court of the United States (Kagan, J., unanimous): Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278 (2013), No. 11-796
  • Exhibit 643 16 August 2010. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust (SEC filing): Form 13F-HR, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, quarter ended 30 June 2010
  • Exhibit 1306 25 June 2025 to 25 June 2026. Supreme Court of the United States: Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, docket