3M 2011 Annual Report Download - page 113

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 113 of the 2011 3M annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 132

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132

107
alleges the plaintiffs suffered various forms of employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the
Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to
treble under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant)
and attorneys’ fees.
Garcia Lawsuit
The Company was served on May 7, 2009 with a purported class action/collective action age discrimination lawsuit,
which was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division (the “Garcia
lawsuit”). The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The
allegations in the Garcia lawsuit are similar to those in the Whitaker lawsuit.
EEOC Age-Discrimination Charges
Six former employees and one current employee, all but one of whom are named plaintiffs in the Garcia lawsuit, also
filed age discrimination charges against the Company with the EEOC and various pertinent state agencies, alleging
age discrimination similar to the Whitaker and Garcia lawsuits and claiming that a class of similarly situated persons
exists. These filings include allegations that the release of claims signed by certain former employees in the
purported class defined in the charges is invalid for various reasons and assert age discrimination claims on behalf of
certain current and former salaried employees in states other than Minnesota and New Jersey.
Compliance Matters
On November 12, 2009, the Company contacted the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to voluntarily disclose that the Company was conducting an internal investigation as a result of
reports it received about its subsidiary in Turkey, alleging bid rigging and bribery and other inappropriate conduct in
connection with the supply of certain reflective and other materials and related services to Turkish government
entities. The Company also contacted certain affected government agencies in Turkey. The Company retained
outside counsel to conduct an assessment of its policies, practices, and controls and to evaluate its overall
compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including an ongoing review of our practices in certain other
countries and acquired entities. As part of its ongoing review, the Company has also reported to the DOJ and SEC
issues arising from transactions in other countries. The Company continues to cooperate with the DOJ and SEC and
government agencies in Turkey in the Company’s ongoing investigation of this matter. The Company cannot predict
at this time the outcome of its investigation or what regulatory actions may be taken or what other consequences
may result.
Other Matters
Commercial Litigation
In September 2010, various parties, on behalf of a purported class of shareholders of Cogent, Inc. (“Cogent”),
commenced three lawsuits against the Company, Cogent, and its directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Plaintiffs allege that 3M, in connection with its tender offer for Cogent shares, aided and abetted the breach of
fiduciary duties by Cogent directors and seek an unspecified amount of damages. The three cases were
consolidated, expedited discovery was conducted, and Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
acquisition was denied on October 1, 2010. On November 15, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added
Cogent directors appointed by 3M, as named defendants, and asserted additional claims of breach of fiduciary duties
in connection with the acquisition and a subsequent offering period. 3M completed its acquisition of Cogent in
December 2010. 3M moved to dismiss all claims. In response to 3M’s motion, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint in August 2011. 3M has moved to dismiss all claims of the second amended complaint.
In September 2010, various parties, again on behalf of a purported class of Cogent shareholders, commenced six
lawsuits against the Company, Cogent and its directors in the Los Angeles Superior Court for the State of California
that contained similar claims that 3M had aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties by Cogent directors. The
parties have reached a resolution of these matters. A separate lawsuit was commenced in September 2010 by an
individual, again on behalf of a purported class of Cogent shareholders, against Cogent and its directors in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California that raised similar claims; plaintiff later filed an amended
complaint that also named the Company. The plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit.