/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/001012.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 12, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 199 Headlines II-VI INC: San Diego Superior Ct Dismisses Breach of Fiduciay Duty Claim ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Antitrust Suits in US Re Syrup/Citric Acid/Lysine ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Antitrust Suit over Sale of Lysine in Canada ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Canadian Anticompetition Suits Re Citric Acid Sale ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Mexico & EC Anticompetitive Action Re Citric Acid ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Monosodium Glutamate Suits in Fd & State Courts ARCHER DANIELS: Fined by U.S. Re Sale of Lysine and Corn Syrup ARCHER DANIELS: Sale of Amino Acid Cause of EC Fine for Anticompetition CHURCHES: Ontario AG Suggests Looking to South Africa for Guidance CIGNA, ACE: Sued for Refusing to Pay Dividend on Workers' Compensation COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Softball Players Sue over Lack of Field on Campus COMTEX NEWS: Investor Sues for Damages from False News Release on Emulex FEDERAL DEPOSIT: Black Workers May Get $14 Mil Settlement FORD MOTOR: Calif. Judge Orders 1.7 Mil Cars and Trucks Recall GENDERM CORP: Class May Be Certified after Ruling on Director Liability HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: German Industry Asks State-Owned Firms to Share HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Germans Industry Admits Failure in Raising Fund INTERSPEED, INC: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA MOBIL OIL: Tells Aust Senate No Business Collapsed Because of Dirty Fuel QWEST: Agrees to Settle Lawsuit over Installation Delays in CO VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: 6 Chemical Firms to Pay Extra $400 Mil VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: BASF to Share $82M in $255M Settlement VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: Mankers Agree to Pay Washington State $10.6 Mil ********* II-VI INC: San Diego Superior Ct Dismisses Breach of Fiduciay Duty Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On August 14, 2000, II-VI INC increased its ownership in Laser Power Corporation from approximately 13% to approximately 88%, giving the Company a controlling interest. This approximately 75% additional ownership was acquired for a total consideration of approximately $22.3 million in cash and the issuance of 739,000 shares of the Company's common stock. II-VI intends to complete the acquisition of Laser Power Corporation via a second-step merger in October 2000. As previously reported in the CAR, on June 13, 2000, a complaint naming Laser Power Corporation and certain current and former directors of the company as defendants was served on Laser Power. The complaint seeks to assert a breach of fiduciary duty claim, and requests class action relief. It is styled C. Oliver Burt, III v. Laser Power Corp., et al., Case No GIC 749273 (San Diego Superior Court). Update On September 1, 2000, the Superior Court dismissed the claim regarding this complaint against Laser Power, without leave to amend. The Court also dismissed the claim against the directors, with leave to amend. Laser Power had previously entered into indemnification contracts with each of its officers and directors, including the directors who were named defendants in the complaint. As a result, Laser Power is paying the expenses of the directors in defending themselves in this matter subject to reimbursement under its insurance policies. Subject to certain limited exceptions, Laser Power will reimburse the directors for any monetary damages assessed against the individual directors that are not covered by Laser Power's insurance policies. ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Antitrust Suits in US Re Syrup/Citric Acid/Lysine ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in thirty-one antitrust suits involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup in the United States. Thirty of these actions have been brought as putative class actions. Federal Actions Re Corn Syrup Twenty-two of these putative class actions allege violations of federal antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup, and seek injunctions against continued alleged illegal conduct, treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative classes in these cases comprise certain direct purchasers of high fructose corn syrup during certain periods in the 1990s. These twenty-two actions have been transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois and consolidated under the caption In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1087 and Master File No. 95-1477. On January 14, 1997, the Company, along with other companies, was named a defendant in a non-class action antitrust suit involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup and corn syrup. This action which is encaptioned Gray & Co. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al, No. 97- 69-AS, and was filed in federal court in Oregon, alleges violations of federal antitrust laws and Oregon and Michigan state antitrust laws, including allegations that defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup, and seeks treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs of an unspecified amount. This action was transferred for pretrial proceedings to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. CA Sate Action Re Corn Syrup The Company, along with other companies, also has been named as a defendant in seven putative class action antitrust suits filed in California state court involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup. These California actions allege violations of the California antitrust and unfair competition laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup, and seek treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys fees and costs, restitution and other unspecified relief. One of the California putative classes comprises certain direct purchasers of high fructose corn syrup in the State of California during certain periods in the 1990s. This action was filed on October 17, 1995 in Superior Court for the County of Stanislaus, California and encaptioned Kagome Foods, Inc. v Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. et al., Civil Action No. 37236. This action has been removed to federal court and consolidated with the federal class action litigation pending in the Central District of Illinois referred to above. The other six California putative classes comprise certain indirect purchasers of high fructose corn syrup and dextrose in the State of California during certain periods in the 1990s. One such action was filed on July 21, 1995 in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, California and is encaptioned Borgeson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. BC131940. This action and four other indirect purchaser actions have been coordinated before a single court in Stanislaus County, California under the caption, Food Additives (HFCS) cases, Master File No. 39693. The other four actions are encaptioned, Goings v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil 23 Page 24 Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS-Continued Action No. 750276 (Filed on July 21, 1995, Orange County Superior Court); Rainbow Acres v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 974271 (Filed on November 22, 1995, San Francisco County Superior Court); Patane Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 212610 (Filed on January 17, 1996, Sonoma County Superior Court); and St. Stan's Brewing Co. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 37237 (Filed on October 17, 1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court). On October 8, 1997, Varni Brothers Corp. filed a complaint in intervention with respect to the coordinated action pending in Stanislaus County Superior Court, asserting the same claims as those advanced in the consolidated class action. CA Action Re Corn Syrup/Citric Acid The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in five putative class action antitrust suits involving the sale of both high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. Two of these actions allege violations of the California antitrust and unfair competition laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seek treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys fees and costs, restitution and other unspecified relief. The putative class in one of these California cases comprises certain direct purchasers of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid in the State of California during the period January 1, 1992 until at least October 1995. This action was filed on October 11, 1995 in the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, California and is entitled Gangi Bros. Packing Co. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 37217. The putative class in the other California case comprises certain indirect purchasers of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid in the state of California during the period October 12, 1991 until November 20, 1995. This action was filed on November 20, in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is encaptioned MCFH, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 974120. The California Judicial Council has bifurcated the citric acid and high fructose corn syrup claims in these actions and coordinated them with other actions in San Francisco County Superior Court and Stanislaus County Superior Court. The Company accepted a settlement agreement with counsel for the citric acid plaintiff class. This settlement received final court approval and the case was dismissed on September 30, 1998. CA Action Re High Fructose Corn Syrup/Citric Acid/Lysine The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in six putative class action antitrust suits filed in California state court involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine. These actions allege violations of the California antitrust and unfair competition laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine, and seek treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys fees and costs, restitution and other unspecified relief. One of the putative classes comprises certain direct purchasers of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine in the State of California during a certain period in the 1990s. This action was filed on December 18, 1995 in the Superior Court for Stanislaus County, California and is encaptioned Nu Laid Foods, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 39693. The other five putative classes comprise certain indirect purchasers of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine in the State of California during certain periods in the 1990s. One such action was filed on December 14, 1995 in the Superior Court for Stanislaus County, California and is encaptioned Batson Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 39680. The other actions are encaptioned Nu Laid Foods, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No 39693 (Filed on December 18, 1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court); Abbott v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. 41014 (Filed on December 21, 1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court); Noldin v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. 41015 (Filed on December 21, 1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court); Guzman v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. 41013 (Filed on December 21, 1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court) and Ricci v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. 96-AS-00383 (Filed on February 6, 1996, Sacramento County Superior Court). The plaintiffs in these actions and the lysine defendants have executed a settlement agreement that has been approved by the court and the California Judicial Council has bifurcated the citric acid and high fructose corn syrup claims and coordinated them with other actions in San Francisco County Superior Court and Stanislaus County Superior Court. Alabama State Action Re Corn Syrup The Company, along with other companies, also has been named a defendant in a putative class action antitrust suit filed in Alabama state court. The Alabama action alleges violations of the Alabama, Michigan and Minnesota antitrust laws, including allegations that defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup, and seeks an injunction against continued illegal conduct, damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in the Alabama action comprises certain indirect purchasers in Alabama, Michigan and Minnesota during the period March 18, 1994 to March 18, This action was filed on March 18, 1996 in the Circuit Court of Coosa County, Alabama, and is encaptioned Caldwell v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 96-17. On April 23, 1997, the court granted the defendants' motion to sever and dismiss the non-Alabama claims. On March 27, 2000, defendants moved for summary judgment in light of a recent Alabama Supreme Court case holding that the Alabama antitrust laws apply only to intrastate commerce. That matter is currently pending. Alabama Action Re Lysine The Company has been named as a defendant, along with other companies, in one putative class action antitrust suit alleging violations of the Alabama antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of lysine, and seeking an injunction against continued alleged illegal conduct, damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in this action comprises certain indirect purchasers of lysine in the State of Alabama during certain periods in the 1990s. This action was filed on August 17, 1995 in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Alabama, and is encaptioned Ashley v. Archer-Daniels- Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 95-336. On March 13, 1998, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. Subsequently, the plaintiff amended his complaint to add approximately 300 individual plaintiffs. On March 23, 2000, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in light of a recent Alabama Supreme Court case holding that the Alabama antitrust laws apply only to intrastate commerce. That motion is currently pending. West Virginia Action Re Corn Syrup, Citric Acid Sale The Company, along with other companies, also has been named as a defendant in at least one putative class action antitrust suit filed in West Virginia state court involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. This action also alleges violations of the West Virginia antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in the West Virginia action comprises certain entities within the State of West Virginia that purchased products containing high fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid for resale from at least 1992 until 1994. This action was filed on October 26, 1995, in the Circuit Court for Boone County, West Virginia, and is encaptioned Freda's Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 95-C-125. Columbia Action Re Corn Syrup and Citric Acid The Company, along with other companies, also has been named as a defendant in a putative class action antitrust suit filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. This action alleges violations of the District of Columbia antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in the District of Columbia action comprises certain persons within the District of Columbia that purchased products containing high fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid during the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1994. This action was filed on April 12, 1996 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, and is encaptioned Holder v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 96- 2975. On November 13, 1998, plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted. KS Action Re Corn Syrup and Citric Sale The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in a putative class action antitrust suit filed in Kansas state court involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. This action alleges violations of the Kansas antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount, court costs and other unspecified relief. The putative class in the Kansas action comprises certain persons within the State of Kansas that purchased products containing high fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid during at least the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, This action was filed on May 7, 1996 in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas and is encaptioned Waugh v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Case No. 96-C-2029. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is currently pending. ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Antitrust Suit over Sale of Lysine in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in one putative class action antitrust suit filed in Ontario Court (General Division) in which the plaintiffs allege the defendants reached agreements with one another as to the price at which each of them would sell lysine to customers in Ontario and as to the total volume of lysine that each company would supply in Ontario in violation of Sections 45 (1)(c) and 61(1)(b)of the Competition Act. The putative class is comprised of certain indirect purchasers in Ontario during the period from June 1, 1992 to June 27, 1995. The plaintiffs seek C$25 million for violations of the Competition Act, C$10 million in punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, interest and costs of the action. This action was served upon the Company on June 11, 1999 and is encaptioned Rein Minnema and 24 Page 25 Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS-Continued Minnema Farms Ltd. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Court File No. G23495-99. The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a respondent in a motion seeking authorization to institute a class action filed in Superior Court in the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal, in which the applicants allege the respondents conspired, combined, agreed or arranged to prevent or lessen, unduly, competition with respect to the sale of lysine in Canada in violation of Section 45(1)(c) of the Competition Act. The putative class is comprised of certain indirect purchasers in Quebec after June, 1992. The applicants seek at least C$4,460,000, costs of investigation, attorneys' fees and interest. This motion is encaptioned Option Consommateurs, et al v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Court No. 500- 06-000089-991. ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Canadian Anticompetition Suits Re Citric Acid Sale ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in three actions filed pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, in which the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Competition Act with respect to the sale of citric acid in Canada. One of these actions was filed in the Superior Court of Justice, in Newmarket, Ontario, and encaptioned Ashworth v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Court file No. 53510/99. The putative class is comprised of certain indirect purchasers in Ontario during the period from July 1, 1991 to June 27, The plaintiffs in this action seek general damages in the amount of C$30 million and punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of C$30 million, interest, costs and fees. The second action was filed in the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario, and encaptioned Fairlee Fruit Juice Limited v. Archer- Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Court File No. 32562/99. The plaintiffs in this action seek general damages in the amount of C$300 million, punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of C$20 million, interest, costs and fees. The Company has become aware of, but has not yet been formally served with, a third action commenced in Barrie, Ontario in the (Ontario) Superior Court of Justice under the Class Proceedings Act. In that action, encaptioned E. D. Smith & Sons, Limited v. Archer Daniels Midland Company et al., Court File No. 99-B673, the putative class is persons or corporations who were resident or carried on business in Ontario and who were direct and indirect purchasers of citric acid between July 1, 1991 and July 27, 1995. The action claims damages in the amount of C$24,000,000 for breach of the Competition Act, conspiracy and infliction of economic injury, plus C$10,000,000 for punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, plus interest and costs. All three Ontario actions referred to above have now been transferred to Toronto, Ontario. The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a respondent in a motion seeking authorization to institute a class action filed in Superior Court in the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal, in which the applicants allege the respondents comprised, combined, agreed or arranged to prevent or lessen, unduly, competition with respect to the sale of citric acid in Canada in violation of Section 45(1)(c) of the Competition Act. The putative class is comprised of certain indirect purchasers in Quebec since July, 1991. The applicants seek C$3,115,000, the costs of investigation, attorneys' fees and interest. This motion is encaptioned Option Consommateurs, et al. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland-Company, et al., Court No.500-06- 000094-991. ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Mexico & EC Anticompetitive Action Re Citric Acid ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In September 1997, the Company received a request for information from the Commission of the European Communities with respect to an investigation being conducted by that Commission into the possible existence of certain agreements and/or concerted practices in the citric acid market in the European Union. On March 28, 2000, the Commission of European Communities initiated formal proceedings against the Company and others and adopted a Statement of Objections. In November 1998, a European subsidiary of the Company received a request for information from the Commission of the European Communities with respect to an investigation being conducted by that Commission into the possible existence of certain agreements and/or concerted practices in the sodium gluconate market in the European Union. On May 17, 2000, the Commission of European Communities initiated formal proceedings against the Company and others and adopted a Statement of Objections. On February 11, 1999 a Mexican subsidiary of the Company was notified that the Mexican Federal Competition Commission had initiated an investigation as to possible anticompetitive practices in the citric acid market in Mexico. On May 8, 2000, a Brazilian subsidiary of the Company was notified of the commencement of an administrative proceeding by the Department of Protection and Economic Defense relative to possible anticompetitive practices in the lysine market in Brazil. On July 3, 2000, the Brazilian subsidiary of the Company filed a Statement of Defense in this proceeding. The ultimate outcome and materiality of the proceedings of the Commission of the European Communities cannot presently be determined. The Company may become the subject of similar antitrust investigations conducted by the applicable regulatory authorities of other countries. ARCHER DANIELS: Fined by U.S. Re Sale of Lysine and Corn Syrup -------------------------------------------------------------- Federal grand juries in the Northern Districts of Illinois, California and Georgia, under the direction of the DOJ, have been investigating possible violations by Archer Daniels Midland Co and others with respect to the sale of lysine, citric acid and high fructose corn syrup, respectively. In connection with an agreement with the DOJ in fiscal 1997, the Company paid the United States fines of $100 million. This agreement constitutes a global resolution of all matters between the DOJ and the Company and brought to a close all DOJ investigations of the Company. The federal grand juries in the Northern Districts of Illinois (lysine) and Georgia (high fructose corn syrup) have been closed. ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Monosodium Glutamate Suits in Fd & State Courts --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in twelve putative class action antitrust suits involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers in the United States. Federal Actions Eight of these putative class actions allege violations of federal antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the price of monosodium glutamate, disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate, and seek various relief, including treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative classes in these cases comprise certain direct purchasers of monosodium glutamate, disodium inosinate and/or disodium guanylate during certain periods in the 1990's to the present. The Company says in its report with the SEC that it has never produced or sold disodium inosinate or disodium guanylate. One such action was filed on October 27, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned Thorp, Inc. v. Archer- Daniels-Midland Company, et al., NoC99 4752 (VRW). The second action was filed on October 27, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned Premium Ingredients, Ltd. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., No. C 99 4742(MJJ). The third action was filed on October 28, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned Felbro Food Products v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., No.C99 4761(MJJ). The fourth action was filed on November 17, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned First Spice Mixing Co., Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. C 99 4977 (PJH). The fifth action was filed on November 23, 1999 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and is encaptioned Diversified Foods and Seasonings, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., Inc. et al., No. 99 CV 5501. The sixth action was filed on December 16, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and is encaptioned M. Phil Yen, Inc. v. Ajinomoto Co. Inc., et al., No. 99 Div 06514 (EK). The seventh action was filed on January 27, 2000 in the Northern District of California and is encaptioned Chicago Ingredients, Inc. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., No. C 00 0308 (JL). The eighth action was filed on April 12, 2000 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is encaptioned Heller Seasonings & Ingredients, Inc. v. Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., et al., No. 00-CV-1905. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated these actions for coordinated pretrial discovery in the United States District Court of the District of Minnesota. State Action The Company, along with at least one other company, also has been named as a defendant in four putative class action antitrust suits filed in California state court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers. These actions allege violations of California antitrust and unfair competition laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the price of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers, and seek treble damages of an unspecified amount, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative classes in these actions comprise certain indirect purchasers of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers in the State of California during certain periods in the 1990's. The first action originally was filed on June 25, 1999 in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and in encaptioned Fu's Garden Restaurant v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Civil Action No. 304471. The second action was filed on January 14, 2000 in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is encaptioned JMN Restaurant Management, Inc. v. Ajinomoto Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 309236. The third action was filed on May 2, in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is encaptioned Tanuki Restaurant and Lilly Zapanta v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al, Civil Action No. 311871. The fourth action was filed on May 24, 2000 in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is encaptioned Tasty Sunrise Burgers v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 312373. On June 19, 2000, the court consolidated all of these cases for pretrial and trial purposes. ARCHER DANIELS: Sale of Amino Acid Cause of EC Fine for Anticompetition ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In June 1997, Archer Daniels Midland Co and several of its European subsidiaries were notified that the Commission of the European Communities had initiated an investigation as to possible anticompetitive practices in the amino acid markets, in particular the lysine market, in the European Union. On October 29, 1998, the Commission of the European Communities initiated formal proceedings against the Company and others and adopted a Statement of Objections. The reply of the Company was filed on February 1, 1999 and the hearing was held on March 1, On August 8, 1999, the Commission of the European Communities adopted a supplementary Statement of Objections expanding the period of involvement as to certain other companies. On June 7, 2000, the Commission of the European Communities adopted a decision imposing a fine against the Company in the amount of EUR 47.3 million. The Company intends to appeal this decision. CHURCHES: Ontario AG Suggests Looking to South Africa for Guidance ------------------------------------------------------------------Churches trying to settle thousands of claims stemming from allegations of abuse at residential schools should look to South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission for guidance, says Ontario's attorney general. Jim Flaherty stopped short of endorsing the process, but he told a recent gathering of Roman Catholic lawyers and judges it may offer "insights"into a resolution. "It is a creative solution for addressing perhaps the most complex social issue imaginable,"he told the St. Thomas More Society in Toronto, cautioning he was "not advocating the same mechanism." "It is a creative solution for addressing perhaps the most complex social issue imaginable. South Africa set up a process for investigating human rights violations during the apartheid period, paying reparations to victims and ensuring their rehabilitation, and granting amnesty to those who fully disclosed the facts of their offences,"Flaherty said. The Anglican, United and Catholic Churches are expected to face a flood of lawsuits stemming from allegations of abuse of natives at the church-run schools. At least 100,000 natives attended the schools between 1874 and 1996. So far, nine class-action suits have been filed and at least 6,200 are suing for billions of dollars in damages. The federal government has reportedly predicted the number of suits could top 15,000 in ten years, leading the Anglican Church to warn it may be broke before long. (Unlike the other Churches, the Catholics, who operated 51 schools, have no head office that can be sued.) Flaherty said there needs to be an "alternative"to litigation in place to resolve the matters. "I find it troubling that the federal government seems to be in litigation mode these days," he said, in a speech that touched on other areas where governments have come under attack. He defended his government's plan to encourage victims of Walkerton, Ont.'s tainted water to accept compensation and sign away their rights to sue. About 2,000 people became sick and six died last spring after drinking water tainted with the deadly E. coli. 0157:H7 bacteria. The water is still unsafe to drink in the town. A $300-million class-action suit has been filed against the province, the town's public utilities commission, the town and the local health unit. In June, the province, facing criticism over cuts to its Environment ministry and changes in testing procedures, announced a compensation plan for residents. "We are also trying to do the right thing by the people of Walkerton,"said Flaherty. Victims submit financial claims to an independent adjuster, who makes a counter offer. If they can't agree, it goes to a mediator and finally binding arbitration. If the victims accept, they lose the right to sue. "Our objective with this plan is to give people ready access to the compensation they need to begin to rebuild their lives. We want to enable those who have already been through so much to avoid the time and expense of lawsuits while receiving fair and full compensation,"Flaherty said. (The Lawyers Weekly, October 13, 2000) CIGNA, ACE: Sued for Refusing to Pay Dividend on Workers' Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A central Pennsylvania company on October 10 filed a class action complaint against insurance giants CIGNA (NYSE: CI) and ACE for their refusal to pay dividends on a retention dividend workers compensation policy originally purchased from CIGNA and then sold by CIGNA to ACE in 1999. Highland Tank, a company based in Manheim, Pennsylvania, bought a workers' compensation policy with CIGNA in 1998, and then renewed it in 1999. Under a retention dividend policy, the insurer retains a portion of the premium and the balance is eligible for return to the insured in payments called "dividends," which are keyed to the losses that the insured experiences during the policy period. In selling its retention dividend policies, CIGNA gave its insureds documents called Net Cost Exhibits, which correlated specific dollar dividends to specific losses. CIGNA also made promises of long-term commitment to its retention dividend policies and insureds. In January 1999, however, six months after selling Highland Tank the first of the two policies, CIGNA announced that it had sold all of its U.S. and international property and casualty business to ACE, including its retention dividend policies, for the total price of $3.45 billion. The formal transfer was completed on July 2, 1999. When they announced the transaction, CIGNA and ACE assured CIGNA's policyholders that ACE would continue business as usual, and Highland Tank renewed its policy in late June 1999. Three months later, however, in the fall of 1999, ACE advised that it had decided not to offer further renewals on the retention dividend policies, and that it had sold the right of first refusal on those renewals to Employers of Wausau, and three months after that, ACE advised that it would not pay dividends on the retention dividend policies, on grounds that the division that had issued those policies was not "a strategic fit" for ACE and was not "profitable." Since dividends on CIGNA's retention dividend policies are not paid until 27 months after a policy's inception, Highland Tank stands to receive no dividends on either its 1998 or 1999 policy. The dividends that Highland Tank stands to lose are approximately $200,000. The complaint alleges that the amount at stake for the class is approximately $27 million. The complaint was filed on behalf of Highland Tank and all persons or entities that purchased or renewed a retention dividend workers' compensation policy from CIGNA, its affiliates or subsidiaries on or after January 1, 1997, or from ACE on or after July 1, 1999. The complaint was filed in Lancaster by Joseph F. Roda of the Lancaster firm of Roda & Nast. Serving as co-counsel will be Paul Zevnik and the Washington, DC firm of Zevnik Horton Guibord McGovern Palmer & Fognani, LLP. Contact: Joseph F. Roda, Esquire of Roda & Nast, P.C., 717-892-3000 COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Softball Players Sue over Lack of Field on Campus -------------------------------------------------------------------- A suburban community college has been sued in federal court over lack of a softball field on campus and other bias claims. The sexual discrimination lawsuit against Edmonds Community College was filed in U.S. District Court by five softball players who are represented by an Oklahoma law firm that specializes in such cases. The plaintiffs say male athletes at the college have better locker rooms and practice facilities, as well as better competition sites. Documents filed with the case asked that it be certified as a class action under a federal law banning gender bias in educational institutions that receive federal money and under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Sharron Sellers, director of communications and marketing, said that college officials had not seen the lawsuit, although it was filed Sept. 27. "Edmonds Community College has a longstanding commitment to women's athletics. Our commitment is genuine and meaningful under the law," Sellers said. She said the field once used by the softball team and by men's and women's soccer teams was converted to a parking lot because of construction on campus, including the addition of a higher education center to be shared by a branch operation of Central Washington University. Officials at the two-year school are trying to arrange for renovation of the nearby Lynnwood High School athletic field to replace the soccer and softball field, Sellers said. That's not good enough, said Samuel Schiller, an Oklahoma attorney representing the players. "What has happened is they had a (men's) baseball field on campus, and they had a softball field that wasn't as nice but it was at least on campus. They tore down the softball field to make room for a parking lot, so they moved the girls to Lynnwood High School," Schiller said. "It's clearly an inferior field." One plaintiff, Marylynne Zaugg, said she and her teammates once bought 40 bags of kitty litter to dry their old field after a rainy spell. The team can't feel the same about an offsite, shared ballfield, Zaugg said. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire, October 11, 2000) COMTEX NEWS: Investor Sues for Damages from False News Release on Emulex ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comtex News Network Inc. has been named a defendant in Pearson, et al v. Internet Wire, Incorporated, et al, which was filed on August 30, 2000 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (CA No. CV-00-B-2371-NE). The plaintiff is seeking actual damages of $120,000 in addition to punitive damages relating to his sale of Emulex Corporation stock in response to an allegedly false news release issued or disseminated by or on behalf of various defendants, including Comtex News. The issue related to Emulex Corporation has been reported in an earlier edition of the CAR. The complaint alleges that the defendants' conduct constituted negligence, gross negligence, misrepresentation and/or fraud, and claims that the defendants failed to take reasonably necessary precautions to prevent the issuance of the press release. The plaintiff seeks to maintain the lawsuit as a class action. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and believes the suit has no merit. FEDERAL DEPOSIT: Black Workers May Get $14 Mil Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to a complaint by three workers, some 3,000 current and former black employees at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. are close to receiving $14 million to settle allegations of racial discrimination. If a tentative agreement is approved by a federal judge, the money would be put in a fund and distributed to the employees in accordance with how long they worked at the agency and how much salary they are estimated to have lost from being unfairly denied promotions. The individual amounts to be paid would be determined by a formula designed by an outside expert in consultation with representatives of the black employees. The FDIC also has agreed to tighten its personnel policies and to set aside an additional $1.5 million to pay the employees' withholding taxes and hire a consultant to review its compliance with the new promotion rules. Under the settlement, the 6,400-employee agency, which is responsible for insuring deposits at the nation's banks and savings and loans, would neither admit to nor deny the allegations of discrimination. If approved, the settlement holds ''a great deal of promise to open up the promotion process'' at the FDIC, Joseph Sellers, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said in a telephone interview. He said the attorneys have been meeting with current and former black employees in Washington and at the agency's regional offices around the country to explain the settlement. The employees' class-action complaint has been in mediation before an impartial third party since February. The agreement in principle, reached late last month, was first reported in Saturday's editions of The Washington Post. The three employees who filed the original complaint in 1992 to an FDIC official alleged that the promotion process bred cronyism that valued friendships and connections among employees more than their qualifications and experience. They said white employees often were selected before a job vacancy was announced and were allowed to fill openings temporarily until they developed the skills needed for the new job. The three employees were Chris J. Conanan, an FDIC attorney in the agency's Office of General Counsel; Willitta Hawkins, who works in information technology at the FDIC; and Marvin Gordan, a bank asset specialist who no longer works there. The $14 million the FDIC would pay is small compared with the record $508 million settlement last March of a 23-year-old lawsuit filed by 1,100 women who said the now-defunct U.S. Information Agency and Voice of America refused to hire them because of their gender. Still, for the 1,000 or so black employees at the FDIC, the settlement is ''enormously significant,'' Sellers said. He said he was hopeful the agreement would be submitted to a federal judge in Washington later this year for final approval by next spring. FDIC spokesman Phil Battey said the agency's ''senior management is pleased with the progress of the mediation. We are hopeful that this mediation will be concluded in a fair and equitable manner that benefits all employees.'' He declined further comment. The plaintiffs' attorneys have set up a toll-free number for current and former black FDIC employees: 1-888-800-8112. (AP Online, October 11, 2000) FORD MOTOR: Calif. Judge Orders 1.7 Mil Cars and Trucks Recall -------------------------------------------------------------- In an unprecedented move, a California state judge ordered the recall of as many as 1.7 million Ford cars and trucks Wednesday, accusing the automaker of ''concealment of a dangerous condition.'' It was the first time a judge in the United States had ordered a car recall. The order only applies to vehicles sold California. Superior Court Judge Michael E. Ballachey said Ford knew the vehicles were prone to stalling, especially when the engine was hot, but failed to alert consumers. The judge, based in Alameda County, had issued a tentative ruling in August hinting he would order the recall and accusing Ford of knowing for nearly two decades that the ignition modules were ''flawed from the outset.'' Ballachey gave Ford attorneys a chance to change his mind, but his ruling Wednesday showed they had failed to sway him. ''This case was about concealment of a dangerous condition,'' Ballachey read from the bench. Government agencies normally order recalls, but Ballachey said state law gives him the power to issue Wednesday's recall. The automaker already is involved in the recall of 6.5 million Firestone tires, which were standard equipment on some Ford trucks and sports utility vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating dozens of deaths possibly linked to the tires. Wednesday's ruling, which applies only to vehicles sold in California, was based on a class-action suit filed on behalf of 3.5 million current and former Ford owners in California. The plaintiffs claim the vehicles stall because wrongly placed ignition devices were exposed to excessive heat and stress. Similar class action suits are pending in Alabama, Maryland, Illinois, Tennessee and Washington. Ballachey said Ford repeatedly deceived federal regulators by claiming there were no problems with its ignition devices in vehicles in the 1983-95 model years. Ballachey wrote that Ford sold as many as 23 million vehicles prone to stalling nationwide. Similar class action suits are pending in Alabama, Maryland, Illinois, Tennessee and Washington. ''Ford has been aware, since at least 1982, that installing its TFI ignition modules on the distributors ... made them inordinately prone to failure due to exposure to excessive heat and thermal stress,'' Ballachey's ruling said. The suit challenged Ford's placement of the thick film ignition, known as a TFI module, which regulates electric current to the spark plugs. In 300 models sold between 1983 and 1995, the module was mounted on the distributor near the engine block, where it was exposed to high temperatures. Ford documents show the automaker was warned by an engineer that high temperatures would cause the device to fail and stall the engine, confirmed the problem in internal studies and could have moved the module to a cooler spot for an extra $4 per vehicle. Ford has denied its TFI ignition systems were flawed, and said Wednesday it disagreed with the judge's ruling. ''The record in this case does not demonstrate a safety problem,'' Ford attorney Richard Warmer said. ''The recall is not justified by the evidence. These vehicles are safe.'' The Center for Auto Safety estimated that any California recall alone would cost Ford at least $125 million. Ford said it does not know how much a California recall would cost. Its 1996 internal documents projected that Ford would spend nearly $300 million to fix the TFI problems nationwide for its 1994-1996 models. After complaints from customers and dealers about stalling, Ford recalled 1.1 million 1984-85 vehicles in 1987 to repair their ignition devices. Jeff Fazio, a lawyer for the plaintiffs who filed the class-action suit, said: ''I think it's a great day for consumers.'' (AP Online, October 11, 2000) GENDERM CORP: Class May Be Certified after Ruling on Director Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A successful lawsuit by GenDerm Corp. shareholders may now be certified as a class action after the court decided that the directors breached their duty to give investors enough informa tion to evaluate a merger offer, said a Delaware state court judge. Turner v. Bernstein et al., No. 16190 (Del. Ch., Aug. 11, 2000). Despite the fact that both parties let the plaintiffs' class-certification motion sit on the back burner for over two years, certifying the class now hurts no one and is the most efficient means of distributing whatever damages are awarded, Vice Chancellor Leo Strine ruled. He also found that shareholders who signed the GenDerm board's form affidavit two years ago disavowing the suit should not be barred from the plaintiff class and that the proposed lead plaintiffs cannot represent them. At the time of GenDerm's merger into Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. in December 1997, there were some 11.5 million outstanding shares of common stock in GenDerm. The plaintiffs here owned some 110,000 shares of GenDerm, which were cashed out at $3.64 a share. While the defendant GenDerm directors collectively owned enough shares to guarantee the requisite two-thirds majority for approval of the merger, the board mailed selected shareholders a Consent Solicitation Package. The plaintiffs asserted that they had never received the CSP, nor any other information that would have allowed them to make an informed decision on whether to accept the cash-out terms or elect appraisal. In a previous opinion, Vice Chancellor Strine found that the GenDerm board had provided the shareholders with "extremely cursory" information and only two days before they had to decide what to do about the Medicis merger. In response to the argument that appraisal is the appropriate remedy, the court said in the absence of legislative guidance, a decision enabling stockholders to hold directors accountable for duty-to-disclose breaches serves an independent purpose not advanced by simple appraisal actions. After that summary judgment decision in favor of the shareholders, they renewed their motion for class certification. Defendants objected, asserting that: -- Having now decided on the merits that defendants breached their duty, the court cannot now certify a class; -- Since a healthy percentage of the proposed class has already signed affidavits in which the shareholders disavowed the suit and its claims, the proposed plaintiffs are not typical of the class; and -- The shareholders who signed those affidavits cannot now reverse their position and join the class action. As to the first point, Vice Chancellor Strine said nothing in Delaware law prevents him from certifying a timely filed class after -- rather than before -- a ruling on the merits. No one will be harmed and the class will be best served by distributing any money damages based on number of shares held, since there is no reliance issue here. Without a class action, this type of "quasi-appraisal" action would degenerate into a chaos of individual suits, the court explained. "What could be more maddening for corporate defendants than to be locked into a quasi-appraisal award but possibly subject to having to pay a larger amount if a subsequent plaintiff who is identically situated seeks and obtains a higher award," the vice chancellor wrote. Besides, he noted, if the defendants -- or the plaintiffs -- had wanted an earlier determination of the class issue they could have pressed the matter in briefing and memoranda. In response to the last point, the court said the mere fact that some members of the proposed class may not want to hold the defendants accountable for breaches of fiduciary duty does not create a conflict that bars class certification. Besides, Vice Chancellor Strine added, the record provides no basis to conclude that the directors who solicted the affidavits presented a balanced rendition of the case and the merits of the opposing positions. The remaining matter is to identify the class members and send them notice, the court said. Ronald A. Brown Jr. of Prickett, Jones, Elliott, Kristol & Schnee in Wilmington, Del., represents the plaintiffs. Gregory A. Varallo and Russell C. Silberglied of Richards, Layton & Finger in Wilmington, and Michael Poulos and Lucinda Bach of Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe in Chicago represent defendants. (Corporate Officers and Directors Liability Litigation Reporter, September 11, 2000) HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: German Industry Asks State-Owned Firms to Share ------------------------------------------------------------------ With companies' donations to a compensation fund for victims of Nazi labor slowing to a trickle, German industry demanded Wednesday that money from state-owned firms count for its half of the 10 billion mark (dlrs 4.5 billion) fund instead of the government's half. German companies' failure to come up with its share anytime soon will not delay payments to survivors, spokesman Wolfgang Gibowski said. More than 1 million people, mostly non-Jews from eastern Europe, stand to receive compensation for being used as slave and forced labor to keep Nazi industry running during World War II. But as the collection drags on with industry's total stuck at about 3.2 billion marks (dlrs 1.3 billion) for months, Gibowski said the effort starts to lose legitimacy and causes some companies to wonder why they paid so much earlier than others. That difference could be quickly made up, Gibowski argued, if the state-run post, telecommunications and train monopolies who are now contributing an amount estimated at as much as 500 million marks (dlrs 223 million) to government's half of the fund instead put their money for the industry half. Gibowski justified the demand saying that the three companies were recently transformed into for-profit corporations, some of which have sold public shares. ''We need the whole German economy, and not parts of it,'' Gibowski said. Around 4,200 firms have already contributed to the fund, but at the rate of around 5 million marks to 10 million marks (dlrs 2.2 million to 4.5 million) coming in a week, it will take a year or more to collect the rest, Gibowski said. The companies behind the fund have launched phone campaigns and public relations offensives to get more firms to join, but Gibowski said there simply aren't any more big companies to quickly close the money gap. Lawmakers and government officials strongly rejected having Deutsche Post, Telekom and Bahn switch their contribution to the industry half saying that would be in violation of the law creating the fund. ''I am not eager to change the law and the law is in force,'' said Volker Beck, a parliament member of the Greens party who is on the Nazi labor fund's board of trustees said. ''There will be no change,'' chief government spokesman Uwe-Karsten Heye said. ''We expect industry to increase its efforts.'' If the companies are having problems raising the money, then Beck said it was up to the 16 founding firms which include such corporate heavyweights as DaimlerChrysler, Deutsche Bank and Bayer to simply up their stake, possibly to more than 100 million marks (dlrs 44.6 million) each. ''It's a lot of money, but it's something that they really can afford if they have to,'' Beck said. Beck also pointed out that with the tax breaks the companies are getting for the donations, taxpayers are already footing 3/4 of the fund's actual cost. Government and industry are waiting for the class-action lawsuits in the United States which had prompted the creation of the fund last year to be dismissed before money flows to victims. Payments had originally been slated to begin by the end of this year, although officials have said it will likely be delayed to 2001. (AP Worldstream, October 11, 2000) HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Germans Industry Admits Failure in Raising Fund ------------------------------------------------------------------ German industry has accepted that efforts to raise DM5bn (Dollars 2.2bn) for a foundation to compensate Nazi-era forced and slave labourers have failed. "Business stands by its undertaking. But without public sector companies, it can't be done in the circumstances," admitted Wolfgang Gibowski, spokesman for the foundation. With some big companies and swathes of smaller and middle sized groups yet to commit themselves, the fund's organisers have sought contributions from public or partially privatised groups. However, the government has argued the DM400m pledged by German railways, the post office and Deutsche Telekom forms part of the DM5bn being paid directly by the state. German companies have so far pledged DM3.2bn towards the DM5bn they promised. A further DM5bn is coming from the government under the DM10bn deal hammered out in July between business, government officials, victims' lawyers and eight countries, including the US. Although the number of German groups offering to contribute has risen from about 3,000 to 4,170 in the past three months, pledges to the fund are running at just DM2m a day, making the DM5bn target unattainable. The admission that the DM5bn total might not be reached came as lawyers for German companies filed submissions to dismiss 39 class actions against leading manufacturers at a federal court in New Jersey. The US court ruling, one of three cases bundling a total of 55 class actions, is expected next month. The keenly awaited ruling for dismissal should set a landmark in giving German industry the protection from legal action it has sought as a central condition for the slave labour settlement. (Financial Times (London), October 11, 2000) INTERSPEED, INC: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA --------------------------------------------------------------------Shareholders filed a federal class-action lawsuit on Oct 10 charging Interspeed, Inc. (Nasdaq: ISPD) with securities fraud, Berman DeValerio & Pease LLP (www.bermanesq.com) said. The lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought Interspeed common stock between February 3, 2000 and October 6, 2000 (the "Class Period"). Berman DeValerio & Pease has represented defrauded investors in class actions for nearly two decades. The complaint charges that Interspeed issued materially false and misleading statements concerning its business, financial condition and earnings that inflated its stock price during the Class Period. Specifically, the lawsuit says Interspeed improperly recorded revenue during the first three quarters of On October 6, the company announced it "anticipates that its unaudited results for the interim periods will be restated." In the same announcement, the company said its chief executive officer, Stephen Ide, had resigned, and that two other high-level employees had been fired. In the wake of the announcement, Interspeed's stock price fell to as low as $1 from a high of $37 during the Class Period. Contact: Jennifer L. Finger, Esq. of Berman DeValerio & Pease, 800-516- 9926, bdplaw@bermanesq.com MOBIL OIL: Tells Aust Senate No Business Collapsed Because of Dirty Fuel ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The contaminated aviation fuel crisis had not permanently ruined any aircraft, Mobil told a Senate committee. Of 3,100 piston-engined aircraft grounded for several weeks in January and February, all but 28, mostly antique planes needing rare parts, were back in the air. "We are aware of no aircraft that will not fly again due to the impact of the avgas incident," ExxonMobil Aviation Asia-Pacific aviation manager Kim MacMillan told the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. She said Mobil had paid out $17.6 million in compensation to 4,175 claimants, with another 262 claims pending and 23 rejected. The four categories of people eligible for reimbursement and hardship payments were aircraft owners and operators, employees and contractors, flight operation service providers, and others who earn their income directly from aircraft. Others, such as tourist operators and taxi companies on islands only accessible by aircraft, were ineligible. Ms MacMillan said Mobil was now facing class actions in the Federal Court and the Victorian Supreme Court and was not admitting legal liability for the crisis. She said although community claims were not legally recognised, Mobil recognised Flinders Island in Bass Strait was a special case and was in discussions with the mayor about a funding package for the island. Several individuals on Flinders Island have been compensated under the main compensation program. Three other businesses and three visitors to the island have had claims rejected. Those six claims totalled $38,000. Asked whether any Flinders Island firms had folded because of the tainted avgas, ExxonMobil Asia-Pacific regional planning executive Malcolm Garrow said none had. "We are not aware of any businesses that have gone bust (Australia-wide) ... as a result of the avgas incident in January," he said. The Senate committee held two hearings with Mobil executives in January, with a follow-up on October 11. (AAP Newsfeed, October 11, 2000) QWEST: Agrees to Settle Lawsuit over Installation Delays in CO -------------------------------------------------------------- Qwest agreed to settle 1996 class-action lawsuit over installation delays in Colo. for $36 million. Settlement, which must be approved by Colo. Dist. Court, Larimer County, could involve up to 244,000 current and former customers. Under sliding-scale compensation formula that's part of settlement, residential customer who waited up to 4 days for 2nd line would get $3.79 credit or payment, while business that waited more than 5 months for primary line would get $1,900. Eight named plaintiffs in suit each would receive $25,000 cash settlement. Qwest also must pay $7.5 million for plaintiffs' legal fees in addition to $36 million customer compensation. Settlement doesn't require Qwest to admit guilt. Suit was filed against U S West, but Qwest inherited litigation when it purchased U S West in June. Class period runs from Jan. 1993 to date court approves settlement. Plaintiffs alleged US West knowingly lied to customers about when their phone service would be installed, while diverting local service resources to other business ventures. If court approves deal, compensation would be paid early in 2002. (Communications Daily, October 11, 2000) VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: 6 Chemical Firms to Pay Extra $400 Mil ------------------------------------------------------------ Six Japanese and European chemical firms have agreed to pay an additional $400 million to settle class action suits in the United States over the companies' conspiracy to fix the prices of vitamins, Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd., one of the six companies, said Wednesday. Of the $400 million, approximately $46 million will be paid by three Japanese firms. Takeda Chemical will pay $27.3 million, Eisai Co. $11.86 million and Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. $6.8 million. The three companies said they would post an extraordinary loss for the first half of fiscal 2000 as a result of the payment. The three other companies are Roche Holding Ltd. of Switzerland, BASF AG of Germany and Aventis SA of France. The payment is meant to compensate indirect purchasers of certain vitamin products, including wholesalers, distributors and end-users, Takeda Chemical said. The six companies have already paid $1.05 billion to U.S. beverage makers to settle their claims and $860 million in criminal fines to the U.S. Justice Department. The companies have admitted conspiring to raise and fix prices and allocate market shares for certain vitamins sold in the U.S. during the 1990s. (Japan Economic Newswire, October 11, 2000) VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: BASF to Share $82M in $255 Mil Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Germman chemicals and pharmaceuticals maker BASF said on Wednesday that it had agreed to pay about 82 million dollars (94 million euros) in settlement of allegations that it had conspired with other companies to fix vitamin prices in the US. BASF and five other vitamin makers -- Roche of Switzerland, Aventis of France, and Takeda, Eisai and Daiichi of Japan -- had agreed to pay a total 255 million dollars in compensation in order to prevent class-action suits by consumers, companies and state organisations in the US, the German company said in a statement. BASF's share would be about 82 million dollars, it added. (Agence France Presse, October 11, 2000) VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: Mankers Agree to Pay Washington State $10.6 Mil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Six foreign vitamin manufacturers have agreed to pay millions, including $ 10.6 million in Washington state, to settle claims that they conspired to fix prices. Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire and other attorneys general around the nation announced the settlements Tuesday. Wisconsin Attorney General Jim Doyle said the six companies have agreed to pay $335 million to 22 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Gregoire's office pegged the total at about $245 million, saying some states have not yet signed the agreements. The companies, which produce vitamin pills and supplements for fortified foods and agricultural feed, are accused of meeting in secret to fix prices from 1989 to 1998. It would be too difficult to provide small rebates to millions of consumers, so Washington state's share of the settlement provides $6.1 million to be distributed as grants for nutritional consumer programs or science, Gregoire said. The settlement also provides $3.1 million for Washington businesses - mostly food manufacturers and agricultural companies - that can provide receipts showing they bought vitamins. Government agencies that paid higher prices because of the conspiracies will get $1.4 million, she said. The companies taking part in the settlement are: F. Hoffmann-La Roche of Switzerland; BASF of Germany; Aventis of France; and Japanese companies Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd., Eisai Co. and Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. "We have cooperated fully with the authorities since this situation came to light and we've taken steps to see that this is not repeated in the future," said Martin Hirsch, a Hoffmann-La Roche spokesman. Last year, vitamin manufacturers agreed to pay $1.1 billion to businesses in a class-action settlement. In addition, Hoffman-La Roche and BASF were ordered to pay $725 million in criminal fines for colluding to divide up markets and set wholesale prices. Four former executives of BASF and Hoffman-La Roche agreed earlier this year to plead guilty, pay fines and serve time in U.S. prisons for scheming to fix vitamin prices. The U.S. government said the conspiracy affected the vitamins most commonly used as nutritional supplements or to enrich human food and animal feed - vitamins A, B2, B5, C, E and beta carotene. Washington businesses interested in filing claims, or programs interested in applying for grants, should contact Virginia Smith of the attorney general's consumer protection division in Seattle at (206) 464-7744. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire, October 11, 2000) ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Princeton, NJ, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, DC. Theresa Cheuk, Managing Editor. Copyright 1999. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 301/951-6400. * * * End of Transmission * * *