International Paper 2015 Annual Report Download - page 80

63
Waste Management, Inc., are PRPs at the San Jacinto
River Waste Pits Superfund Site (San Jacinto River
Superfund Site) in Harris County, Texas, and have been
actively participating in investigation and remediation
activities at this Superfund Site. In December 2011,
Harris County, Texas filed a suit against the Company
seeking civil penalties with regard to the alleged
discharge of dioxin into the San Jacinto River from
waste impoundments that are part of the San Jacinto
River Superfund Site. In November 2014, International
Paper secured a zero liability jury verdict. Harris County
appealed the verdict in April 2015, and that appeal is
pending. The Company is also defending an additional
lawsuit related to the San Jacinto River Superfund Site
brought by approximately 400 individuals who allege
property damage and personal injury. Because this
case is still in the discovery phase, it is premature to
predict the outcome or to estimate a loss or range of
loss, if any, which may be incurred.
Antitrust
Containerboard: In September 2010, eight
containerboard producers, including International
Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants
in a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is
captioned Kleen Products LLC v. International Paper
Co. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the
defendants, beginning in February 2004 through
November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and
thereby increase prices of containerboard products.
The class is all persons who purchased containerboard
products directly from any defendant for use or delivery
in the United States during the period February 2004
to November 2010. The complaint seeks to recover an
unspecified amount of treble actual damages and
attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported class. Four
similar complaints were filed and have been
consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. In March
2015, the District Court certified a class of direct
purchasers of containerboard products; in June 2015,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit granted the defendants' petition to appeal and
the class certification issue is now pending in that court.
In June 2015, International Paper and Temple-Inland
were named as defendants in a lawsuit captioned Del
Monte Fresh Products N.A., Inc. v. Packaging
Corporation of America (S.K. Fl.), in which the Plaintiff
asserts substantially similar allegations to those raised
in the Kleen Products LLC action. Pursuant to a tolling
agreement signed by all parties, the case was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in November
2015. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper
was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state
court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that
International Paper violated Tennessee law by
conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of
containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs
in the state court action seek certification of a class of
Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard
products, damages and costs, including attorneys' fees.
No class certification materials have been filed to date
in the Tennessee action. The Company disputes the
allegations made and is vigorously defending each
action. However, because the Kleen Products LLC
action is in the discovery stage and the Tennessee
action is in a preliminary stage, we are unable to predict
an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible
loss.
Gypsum: Beginning in late December 2012, certain
purchasers of gypsum board filed a number of
purported class action complaints alleging civil
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against
Temple-Inland and a number of other gypsum
manufacturers. The complaints were similar and
alleged that the gypsum manufacturers conspired or
otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of
gypsum board either from 2008 or 2011 through the
present; (2) avoid price erosion by ceasing the practice
of issuing job quotes; and (3) restrict supply through
downtime and limiting order fulfillment. On April 8, 2013,
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered
transfer of all pending cases to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated
and consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct
purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed
their respective amended consolidated complaints in
June 2013. The amended consolidated complaints
alleged a conspiracy or agreement beginning on or
before September 2011. The alleged classes were all
persons who purchased gypsum board directly or
indirectly from any defendant. The complainants seek
to recover unspecified treble actual damages and
attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported classes. In
February 2015, we executed a definitive agreement to
settle these cases for an immaterial amount, and this
settlement received final court approval and was paid
in the third quarter of 2015.
In March 2015, several homebuilders filed an antitrust
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging that they purchased
gypsum board and making similar allegations to those
contained in the above settled proceeding. That lawsuit
was transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The
homebuilders filed a notice to opt out of the class
settlements and recently amended their complaint to
assert that the alleged conspiracy or conspiracies
continued into 2015. The Company intends to dispute
the allegations made and to vigorously defend that
lawsuit.
In addition, in September 2013, similar purported class
actions were filed in courts in Quebec, Canada and
Ontario, Canada, with each suit alleging violations of
the Canadian Competition Act and seeking damages
and injunctive relief. In April 2015, a similar class action