Court records show that lawyers for the plaintiffs and the companies in the federal paraquat litigation signed a settlement agreement on September 3, 2025, covering certain individual claims. Later orders explain how the settlement is being managed. They do not publish settlement amounts, and they do not say the settlement is open to new claims.
Where the paraquat cases are
Federal lawsuits claiming that paraquat exposure contributed to Parkinson’s disease are gathered in one multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 3004. It is in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, before Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel. The companies named include Syngenta and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. As of October 1, 2026, 6,602 cases were pending, out of 8,495 filed since the MDL began. (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation)
The cases have not gone one way. In April 2024, the court excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ only expert on whether paraquat can cause Parkinson’s disease. It then granted summary judgment to the companies in the first four cases picked for trial and dismissed them. (court order) The court then chose new cases to prepare.
The September 2025 agreement
The court’s Case Management Order No. 24 states that on September 3, 2025, the plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel and the defendants signed a “Master Settlement Agreement for Certain Individual Claims and Actions Involving Paraquat Products.” (CMO 24) A later order says the court was told in April 2025 that the parties had reached a global settlement. (June 2, 2026 order)
While the settlement was worked out, the court paused case-specific deadlines and canceled the first trial, which had been set for October 2025. (September 29, 2025 order)
A settlement is an agreement to end claims. It is not a court finding, and it is not an admission that anyone did anything wrong.
What the April 2026 order covers
On April 8, 2026, the court gave the special master, Randi Ellis, access to information about the settlement. The settlement had already given her duties over administration and decisions about who qualifies. The order directed the plaintiffs’ settlement administrators to tell her:
- Which plaintiffs did not qualify, and why.
- Which eligible plaintiffs opted out, or said they planned to, along with each one’s settlement tier and offer.
- Which eligible plaintiffs had neither opted in nor opted out.
- The total dollars assigned to each of those groups.
The special master was then to meet with plaintiffs who had opted out or not yet decided, to make sure each one was making an informed choice. (CMO 24) The order shows that offers were set by tiers. It does not make the tiers or the dollar amounts public, and neither do the other orders on the court’s website.
Plaintiffs who declined their offers
In June 2026, the court reported that many plaintiffs had turned down their offers, and that the rate was very high among clients of three law firms. To understand why, it chose a share of those cases for limited discovery: a fact sheet, a deposition, and narrow requests to third parties. (June 2 order; June 3 order)
The orders say that third-party discovery is meant for cases lacking proof of an applicator’s license or evidence of paraquat use. That can include subpoenas to retailers for proof of purchase, or a statement from a supervisor whose license a plaintiff says they worked under. (June 3 order) In August and September 2026, the court held follow-up proceedings about one firm’s opt-out cases, then told the special master to keep working with that firm. (September 11, 2026 order)
Separately, in February 2026 the companies asked the court to rule against all failure-to-warn claims in the pending cases. (CMO 23) As of October 3, 2026, the court’s paraquat page listed no upcoming proceedings or deadlines. (Southern District of Illinois)
Settlement eligibility is not the same as a new claim
These orders are about cases that were already part of the MDL settlement process. They say who qualified for an offer and what happens to people who said no. They do not say that someone who has not filed can join, and they do not set a deadline for new claims.
Whether a person can bring a paraquat claim now depends on separate questions: the product, the exposure, the diagnosis, the evidence, and the deadlines in their state. Please do not assume an earlier settlement is open to new claims.
Our paraquat page explains what a review looks at and which records help. This article is general information, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship.
This article is general information about how these cases work. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and no two claims are alike. If something here sounds like your situation, the useful next step is a conversation about the facts.