This excerpt taken from the SYT 20-F filed Mar 1, 2006.
Glyphosate Class Action On November 21, 2001, a class action complaint was filed by S&M Farm Supply, Inc. in federal court in California against Monsanto Company and its then parent Pharmacia Corporation, alleging that Monsanto and various alleged co-conspirators, including Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and its predecessor corporations, conspired to allocate markets and to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for glyphosate-based and paraquat-based herbicides in the United States. On March 6, 2002, the judge in those proceedings ordered that the proceedings be transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri. This case was consolidated with Orange Cove Ag-Chem v. Pharmacia. On October 16, 2003, the court denied plaintiffs motion for class certification and denied the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration on November 20, 2003. The court also denied the plaintiffs motion to stay the case on November 25, 2003. Subsequently the case was dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiff. On December 19, 2001, a representative action and class action complaint was filed under the title Kevin Williamson and Bobby Vailette vs. Pharmacia Corporation, Monsanto Company and Does 1-100 in the Superior Court of California for Sonoma. The action brought under the California Business and Professions Code raises similar allegations to those made in the federal lawsuit and claims violations by the defendants and their alleged co-conspirators, including Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., and their predecessor corporations, of the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Act. This case has also been dismissed with prejudice by plaintiffs.
On May 21, 2002, a class action suit raising similar allegations was filed under the title of Gerald T. Raines v. Pharmacia Corporation, Monsanto Company and Does 1-100 in the Circuit Court for Cooke County, Tennessee. On May 3, 2003, a class action suit was filed in Superior Court in Passaic, New Jersey, against Monsanto claiming that similar factual allegations constitute violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. On July 16, 2003, this case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. At this point in time no Syngenta entity has been formally named as a defendant in any of these proceedings.
Syngenta and its predecessor companies have competed vigorously in the seed and crop protection marketplace and therefore will vigorously oppose the allegations in the related court cases described above.