The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 1969 - 0058RESOLUTION NO.69-58 APPROVING CHLOR-ALKALI ANTITRUST CASES SETTLEMENT A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS.1,2,3,5,6,7,AND 11,OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA,APPROVING A SETTLEMENT IN THE CHLOR-ALKALI ANTITRUST CASES WHEREAS,upon recommendation of special counsel,Rutan &Tucker,that settlement of the Chlor—Alkali Antitrust cases be approved as more fully set out hereinafter; The Boar~of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1,2,3,~5,6,7,and 11,of Orange County,California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE,DETERIVflNE AND ORDER: Section 1 That the Chairman and Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.1,acting as agent for itself and County Sanitation Districts Nos.2,3, 5,6,7,and 11,of Orange County,California,be authorized to execute a Release In the form attached hereto as Exhibit I. Section 2 That the law firm of Rutan &Tucker is authorized to execute a Dismissal with Prejudice in the form attached hereto as Exhibit II. Section 3 That the law firm of Rutan &Tucker be authorized to execute the letter agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit III. APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held July 9,1969. RESOLUTION No.69-58 EX~I3IT I RELEASE (hereinafter referred to as “plaintfff”),in consideration of the payment of the swn of One Dollar ($1)and other good and valuable considera— •tion,receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,does hereby release, acquit and forever discharge Allied Chemical Corporation,The Dow Chemical Company,Hooker Chemical Corporation,Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation,Pennsalt Chemicals Corporation,Stau~fer Chemical Company and Wyandotte Chemicals Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “defendants”)and each of them,their agents,ser vants,officers,directors,employers)subsidiaries,succezsors or assi.gns from any claims whether or not presently known which plaintiff ever had,now has or hereafte:~may have against any of the de~endants or their agents,servants,officers,directors, employees,subsidiaries,successors or assigns which have been or mi~t be asserted under the Shernan Act (15 U.S.C.§1)or under any other federal or state antitrust law or under any other common or statutory law giving rights to relief upon al~egations which p~aintiff or any other plaintiff has asserted in Civil Action Nos.67—203—cC,67_2oL~._IH,67-205-PH,67-2o6-WPG,67-2o7-F~, 67-2o8-wPG,67-209-F,67-69o-s,67-1338-Fw,67-1339-j~rc,67_a3L~.0_F, 67—l3~l—PH in the United States Distr!ct Court for the Central District of California and in those so—called “chior-alkali” actions consolidated before the Honorable George H.Bodt,with respect to or In cbnnect~on with any purchases made by Plainti~ I -2- prior to the date hereof as to which claims were asserted by any plaintiff in any of said civil actions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,Plaintiff has caused this Release to be executed this ,1969 by its duly authorized officer or agent. ATTEST: By: H RUTAN &TUCKER GARVIN F.S}LALLENEERGER RICHARD A.CURNOTTT 401 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana,California 92702 •Telephone 514.3 _9t1.1l Attorneys for Plaintiffs x COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Nos..1,2,3,5,6,7 and 11 of the County of Orange,State of California, PENNSALT CHEMICALS CORPORATION,ET AL., Defendants CITY OP HOLTVILLE, Plaintiffs V. PENNSALT CHEMICALS CORPORATION,ET AL., Defendants PENNSALT CHEMICALS COR~ORATI0X,ET AL., Defendants CIVIL ACTIONS NO. 67—203-cC 67-2o14.-IH 67-2o5-P:-~ 67-2o6-WPo 67—2o7-F~I - 67-2o8-~rPG 67-20 9-F RESOLUTION NO.69—58 EXHIBIT II IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA .1 2 3 .4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1]. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\ 22 23 24 25 2o 27 28 29 30 31 .32 Plaintiffs, V. PENNSALT CHEMICALS CORPORATION,ET AL., Defendants. x CITY OF BRA WLEY, Plaintiffs V. PENNSALT CHEMICALS CORPORATION,ET Defendants CITY OF CALEXICO, Plaintifft V. •:CIVIL ACTION AL.~. NO.67-13!~.o-F CIVIL ACTION NO.67-131~-1-PH :CIVIL ACTION NO.67-i33S-p~r CIVIL ACTION NO.67-l339-~•:c CITY OF I~ERIAL, V. Plaintiffs EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT :CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, V. PENNSALT CI~E~CALS CORPORATION,ET AL., Defendants NO.67-690-s STIPULATION FOR DIS~ES~AL It is hereby stipulated and ag~-aed that,pursuant to Rule 41(l)(li)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,the above captioned actions may be di~miszed with prejudice,each party to bear its own costs. ,].969 RUTAN ~TUC~R GARVIN F.SHALLENBERGER RICHARD A.CURNUTI~ By 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 .1 - 32 Attorneys ~or Plaintifis 4Oi Civic Center Drive West Santa•Ana,California MCCUTCHEN,BLACK,VERLEGER &SHEA By .~6I5Th.Flo~ier Street I~s Angeles,California Attorneys for Defendants Pennsalt Chemicals CorDoration, Aliied Chemical Corporation, FMC Corpcrat ion • Hooker Chemical Corporation Olin Mathieson Chemical Cor~oraticn Stau.ffer Chemical Company, Wyandotte Chemicals Corporation I’TICHOLAS,:cOLLENER,VAN TASSEL & MYERS By ~doOO Wils~-i~re Boulevard Los AnGeles,California Attorneys for Defendant The Do;r Chemical Company —2- •1 BROBECK,PHLEGER &}L~R?.iSO:T 2 By______________ .111 Sutter Street San Francisco,California Attorneys for Defendant 5 PPG Industries 6 -THELEN,ARRIN,JoH~so:;&BRIDGES 7 8 By_______________________________ 111 Sutter Street 9 San Francisco,California Attorneys for Defendant 10 Diamond Sha~ock Corporation 11 Upon the Stipulation for Dismissal filed by Plaintiffs 12 and Defendants,it is ordered that the above captioned action~be 13 dismissed with prejudice;each party to hear its own costs. 14 15 _____________ 16 17 18 19 20 4 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 29 30 32 • -. RESOLIJTION NO.69-56 EXHIBIT III July 9,1969 Richard H.Siegel Attorney at Law Sage,Gray,Todd &Sims 40 Wall Street New York,N.Y.10005 Re:Settlement of Chior-Alkali Actions Dear Mr.Siegel: This will confirm the agrecient reached between our clients,Sanitation Districts Nos.1,2,3,5,6,7 and 11 of Orange County,Eastern Nunicipal Water District and the cities of Brawley,Calexico,Holtville and Imperial (“Plaintiff&’),and Allied Chemical Corporation,The Dow Chemical Company,Hooker Chemical Corporation,Olin Nathieson -Chemical Corporation,Pennsalt Chemicals Corporation,Stauffer Chemical Company and Wyandotte Chemicals Corporation (“Defen dants”)to compromise and settle all antitrust claims arising from any purchases made prior to the date hereof which Plain tiffs have asserted against Defendants in respect of the matters set forth in the treble damage actions brought in the • United States District Court for the Central District of California by Plaintiffs against Defendants and others. This agreement includes all of said purchases of Defen dents’products,whether purchased directly from Defendants, or indirectly from or through repackagers,distributors,inter •mediaries,wholesalers,retailer8,jobbers or similar enter- • prises.- You,as agent for Deferidant-s,and I,as agent for Plaintiffs agree: 1.I will forthwith have executed on behalf of Plaintiffs, arid transmit to you,(a)releasesexecuted on behalf of each plaintiff,in the form attached hereto as Exhibit I,duly cxc cuted by authorized representatives of Plaintiffs,with approp ~iate evidence of authority for each such execution;and Richard~’-!.Siegel July 9,1969 New Yerk,N.~•Page 2 (b)a stipulation to dismiss said civil actions with prejudice in the form attached hereto as Exhibit II executed by me and earing ~uifici~nt evidence of approval by and filing with the appropriate court. 2.Upon receipt by you of the duly executed documents de scribed in Paragraph 1 above,Defendants will be oblIgated to pay to me as agent for Plaintiffs a total of Thirty-Nine Thousand end Seventy-Seven Dollars ($393077.)in satisfaction of the claims of Plaintiffs and each of them against Defendants or any of them. This sum includes an amount in settlement of all claims asserted in said actions and which might be escorted under the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.S1)-or urtder any other federal or state antitrust law or under any other co~cmon or statutory la~giving rights to re • lief under the same or similar circumstances,and reimbursement of expenses and counsel Lees in connection with said actions. 3.Defendants do not admit or concede,and on the contrary, expressly deny that they or any of them have or has engaged in -any illegal or wrongful activity or thit Plaintiffs have sustained •any damage by reason of any of the acts coc~plained of in said •actions. 4.Except for whatever disclosure may be reasonably incident to obtaining approval of matters of this type,by the particular governmental body involved or required by the court,I and my clients shall hold confidential and not dis~1ose to any third party ~either the terms of this agreement or the sums payable hereunder. 5.I represent that I am authorized as counsel to take all steps on behalf of my clients which this agreement contemplates •and Defendants’reliance on this represoatation is the reason for their decision to enter into this agreement. Sincerely yours, ACCEPTED:,1969 Garvin F.Sha1len~er~er as Agent for Plaintiffs - referred to herein. Richard N.Siegel as Agent for Defendants GFS:ba