|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
These excerpts taken from the SMG 10-K filed Dec 3, 2008. U.S. Horticultural
Supply, Inc. (F/K/A E.C. Geiger, Inc.)
On November 5, 2004, U.S. Horticultural Supply, Inc.
(“Geiger”) filed suit against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that the Company conspired
with another distributor, Griffin Greenhouse Supplies, Inc., to
restrain trade in the horticultural
Table of Contents
products market, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act. On June 2, 2006, the Court denied the
Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Fact discovery
and expert discovery are closed. Geiger’s damages expert
quantifies Geiger’s alleged damages at approximately
$3.3 million, which could be trebled under antitrust laws.
Geiger also seeks recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Company has moved for summary judgment requesting dismissal
of Geiger’s claims.
The Company continues to vigorously defend against Geiger’s
claims and believes that Geiger’s claims are without merit.
While no accrual has been established related to this matter,
the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome with certainty.
The Company had previously sued and obtained a judgment against
Geiger on April 25, 2005, based on Geiger’s default on
obligations to the Company. The Company is proceeding to collect
that judgment.
U.S. Horticultural Supply, Inc. (F/K/A E.C. Geiger, Inc.) On November 5, 2004, U.S. Horticultural Supply, Inc. (“Geiger”) filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that the Company conspired with another distributor, Griffin Greenhouse Supplies, Inc., to restrain trade in the horticultural Table of Contentsproducts market, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On June 2, 2006, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Fact discovery and expert discovery are closed. Geiger’s damages expert quantifies Geiger’s alleged damages at approximately $3.3 million, which could be trebled under antitrust laws. Geiger also seeks recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company has moved for summary judgment requesting dismissal of Geiger’s claims. The Company continues to vigorously defend against Geiger’s claims and believes that Geiger’s claims are without merit. While no accrual has been established related to this matter, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome with certainty. The Company had previously sued and obtained a judgment against Geiger on April 25, 2005, based on Geiger’s default on obligations to the Company. The Company is proceeding to collect that judgment. These excerpts taken from the SMG 10-K filed Nov 25, 2008. U.S. Horticultural
Supply, Inc. (F/K/A E.C. Geiger, Inc.)
On November 5, 2004, U.S. Horticultural Supply, Inc.
(“Geiger”) filed suit against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that the Company conspired
with another distributor, Griffin Greenhouse Supplies, Inc., to
restrain trade in the horticultural products market, in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On
June 2, 2006, the Court denied the Company’s motion to
dismiss the complaint. Fact discovery and expert discovery are
closed. Geiger’s damages expert quantifies Geiger’s
alleged damages at approximately $3.3 million, which could
be trebled under antitrust laws. Geiger also seeks recovery of
attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company has moved for
summary judgment requesting dismissal of Geiger’s claims.
The Company continues to vigorously defend against Geiger’s
claims and believes that Geiger’s claims are without merit.
While no accrual has been established related to this matter,
the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome with certainty.
The Company had previously sued and obtained a judgment against
Geiger on April 25, 2005, based on Geiger’s default on
obligations to the Company. The Company is proceeding to collect
that judgment.
U.S. Horticultural Supply, Inc. (F/K/A E.C. Geiger, Inc.) On November 5, 2004, U.S. Horticultural Supply, Inc. (“Geiger”) filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that the Company conspired with another distributor, Griffin Greenhouse Supplies, Inc., to restrain trade in the horticultural products market, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On June 2, 2006, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Fact discovery and expert discovery are closed. Geiger’s damages expert quantifies Geiger’s alleged damages at approximately $3.3 million, which could be trebled under antitrust laws. Geiger also seeks recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company has moved for summary judgment requesting dismissal of Geiger’s claims. The Company continues to vigorously defend against Geiger’s claims and believes that Geiger’s claims are without merit. While no accrual has been established related to this matter, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome with certainty. The Company had previously sued and obtained a judgment against Geiger on April 25, 2005, based on Geiger’s default on obligations to the Company. The Company is proceeding to collect that judgment. This excerpt taken from the SMG 10-K filed Nov 29, 2007. U.S. Horticultural
Supply, Inc. (F/K/A E.C. Geiger, Inc.)
On November 5, 2004, U.S. Horticultural Supply, Inc.
(“Geiger”) filed suit against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. This complaint alleges that the Company conspired
with another distributor, Griffin Greenhouse Supplies, Inc., to
restrain trade in the horticultural products market, in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On
June 2, 2006, the Court denied the Company’s motion to
dismiss the complaint. Fact discovery ended on March 8,
2007. The Company is currently engaged in expert discovery, the
deadline for completion of which is December 7, 2007.
Geiger’s damages expert quantifies Geiger’s alleged
damages at approximately $3.3 million, which could be
trebled under the antitrust laws. The deadline for dispositive
motions is January 17, 2008.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The Company continues to vigorously defend against Geiger’s
claims. The Company believes that Geiger’s claims are
without merit and that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome
is remote. Therefore, no accrual has been established related to
this matter. However, the Company cannot predict the ultimate
outcome with certainty. If the above action is determined
adversely to the Company, the result could have a material
adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations,
financial position and cash flows. The Company had previously
sued and obtained a judgment against Geiger on April 25,
2005, based on Geiger’s default on obligations to the
Company, and the Company is proceeding to collect that judgment.
This excerpt taken from the SMG 10-K filed Dec 14, 2006. U.S. Horticultural
Supply, Inc. (F/K/A E.C. Geiger, Inc.)
On November 5, 2004, U.S. Horticultural Supply, Inc.
(“Geiger”) filed suit against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. This complaint alleges that the Company conspired
with another distributor, Griffin Greenhouse Supplies, Inc., to
restrain trade in the horticultural products market, in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Geiger
has not specified the amount of monetary damages it is seeking.
On June 2, 2006, the Court denied the Company’s motion
to dismiss the complaint. The Company is currently engaged in
discovery relating to Geiger’s claim. The deadline for fact
discovery is March 8, 2007.
Table of Contents
The Company intends to vigorously defend against Geiger’s
claims. The Company believes that Geiger’s claims are
without merit and that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome
is remote. Therefore, no accrual has been established related to
this matter. However, the Company cannot predict the ultimate
outcome with certainty. If the above action is determined
adversely to the Company, the result could have a material
adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations,
financial position and cash flows. Because Geiger has not
specified an amount of monetary damages in the case (which may
be trebled under the antitrust statutes) and discovery has not
yet concluded, any potential exposure that the Company may face
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
| EXCERPTS ON THIS PAGE:
|
| |||||||
