DuPont 2009 Annual Report Download - page 89

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements (continued)
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
In July 2007, DPE pled guilty to conspiring to fix prices and paid a fine of CDN $4, approximately $3.8 USD, resolving all
criminal antitrust allegations against it related to PCP in Canada.
In late March 2007, the EU antitrust authorities issued a Statement of Objections that made antitrust allegations
regarding the PCP market against DPE, relating to the joint venture’s activities, and DuPont, to which both responded.
In December 2007, the EU antitrust authorities issued their decision, including the imposition of fines against DPE, Dow
and DuPont totaling EURO 59.25. In February 2008, DuPont appealed the decision to the EU’s Court of First Instance
which has jurisdiction to review the findings and adjust the fine. It is very unlikely that the fine would be increased as a
result of the review. In March 2008, the company provisionally paid the fine of EURO 59.25 ($90.9 USD); a portion of the
payment may be refunded if the appeal is successful. While a decision on the February 2008 appeal has not been
issued, the EU antitrust authorities revised the December 2007 decision by imposing an incremental fine on Dow of
EURO 4.425 ($6.5 USD). Dow provisionally paid the incremental fine in the third quarter of 2008 which DuPont
reimbursed under the agreements between the companies.
DDE resolved all criminal antitrust allegations against it related to PCP in the U.S. through a plea agreement with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) in January 2005 which was approved by the court on March 29, 2005. The agreement
requires the subsidiary to pay a fine of $84 which, at its election, is being paid in six equal, annual installments. The last
remaining installment will be paid during the first quarter 2010. The agreement also requires the subsidiary to provide
ongoing cooperation with the DOJ’s investigation.
At December 31, 2009, the company has accruals of approximately $14 related to this matter and a receivable of $1.7
for the remaining amount that it expects to be reimbursed by Dow.
Benlate
In 1991, DuPont began receiving claims by growers that use of Benlate 50 DF fungicide had caused crop damage.
DuPont has since been served with thousands of lawsuits, most of which have been disposed of through trial, dismissal
or settlement. The status of Benlate cases is indicated in the table below:
Number
of Cases
Balance at January 1, 2007 60
Filed 2
Resolved (48)
Balance at December 31, 2007 14
Filed -
Resolved (3)
Balance at December 31, 2008 11
Filed 2
Resolved -
Balance at December 31, 2009 13
At December 31, 2009, there were ten cases pending in Florida state court, involving allegations that Benlate caused
crop damage. One attorney represents the plaintiffs in 6 out of the 10 cases. Another attorney represents the plaintiffs in
3 of the 10 cases including 2 cases involving twenty-seven Costa Rican fern growers. During the second quarter 2006
trial of these 2 cases, the plaintiffs sought damages in the range of $270 to $400. A $56 judgment was rendered against
the company, but was reduced to $24 on DuPont’s motion. In the fourth quarter 2009, the appeal was resolved in
DuPont’s favor. The judgment was reversed, vacated and the cases were reverted to be tried separately. Plaintiffs will
likely seek further appellate review. In the third quarter 2009, a case alleging crop damage was filed for the third time
having been dismissed twice before on DuPont’s motion. It has been, and continues to be, the company’s position that
the plaintiff does not own the property allegedly damaged. One case alleging crop damage is scheduled for trial during
the second quarter 2010.
F-31