`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC A. POLICASTRO (CA SBN: 264605)
`Admission Pending
`epolicastro@fnlawfirm.com
`N. MAJED NACHAWATI (TX SBN: 24038319)
`Admission Pro Hac Vice Anticipated
`mn@fnlawfirm.com
`PATRICK A. LUFF (TX SBN: 24092728)
`Admission Pro Hac Vice Anticipated
`pluff@fnlawfirm.com
`FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC
`5473 Blair Road
`Dallas, Texas 75231
`Telephone: (214) 890-0711
`Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`PAUL RAKOCZY,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC,
`SYNGENTA AG, CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., and
`DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`Civil Action No.: 4:21-cv-2083
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 2 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff PAUL RAKOCZY, complaining of Defendants SYNGENTA CROP
`PROTECTION LLC, SYNGENTA AG, CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., and DOES 1 through 50,
`inclusive, files this Complaint, and would respectfully show as follows:
`I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE
`Paraquat is a synthetic chemical compound1 that since the mid-1960s has been
`1.
`developed, registered, manufactured, distributed, sold for use, and used as an active ingredient in
`herbicide products (“paraquat”) developed, registered, formulated, distributed, and sold for use in
`the United States, including the State of California.
`that
`to companies
`Defendants are companies and successors-in-interest
`2.
`manufactured, distributed, and sold paraquat for use in California, acted in concert with others who
`manufactured, distributed, and sold paraquat for use in California, sold and used paraquat in
`California, or owned property in California where paraquat was used.
`Plaintiff brings this suit against Defendants to recover damages for personal injuries
`3.
`resulting from Plaintiff’s exposure to paraquat over many years in California.
`II. PARTIES
`
`A. Plaintiff
`Plaintiff Paul Rakoczy is a citizen and resident of the State of New Jersey who
`4.
`suffers from Parkinson’s disease (“PD”) caused by exposure to paraquat within the State of
`California.
`
`B. Defendants
`Defendant Syngenta Crop Protection LLC (“SCPLLC”) is a Delaware company
`5.
`with its principal place of business in Greensboro, North Carolina. SCPLLC is a wholly owned
`subsidiary of Defendant Syngenta AG.
`Defendant Syngenta AG (“SAG”) is a foreign corporation with its principal place
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paraquat dichloride (EPA Pesticide Chemical Code 061601) or paraquat methosulfate (EPA Pesticide
`1
`Chemical Code 061602).
`
`2
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 3 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of business in Basel, Switzerland.
`Defendant Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (“Chevron U.S.A.”) is a Pennsylvania corporation
`7.
`with its principal place of business in San Ramon, California.
`III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
`8.
`because there is complete diversity of the plaintiff and the defendants and the matter in controversy
`exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because Defendants’ conduct
`9.
`business in this District, are subject to jurisdiction in this district, and have sold, marketed, and or
`distributed Paraquat within this District at all times relevant to this suit, because a substantial part
`of the acts or occurrences giving rise to this suit occurred within this District, and because
`Defendant Chevron U.S.A. has its principal place of business in this District.
`IV. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
`A. Defendants and their predecessors.
`
`1. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC and Syngenta AG
`10.
`In 1926, four British chemical companies merged to create the British company
`that then was known as Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. and ultimately was known as Imperial
`Chemical Industries PLC (“ICI”).
`In or about 1971, ICI created or acquired a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary organized
`11.
`under the laws of the State of Delaware, which at various times was known as Atlas Chemical
`Industries Inc., ICI North America Inc., ICI America Inc., and ICI United States Inc., and
`ultimately was known as ICI Americas Inc. (collectively “ICI Americas”).
`In or about 1992, ICI merged its pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, and specialty
`12.
`chemicals businesses, including the agrochemicals business it had operated at one time through a
`wholly owned British subsidiary known as Plant Protection Ltd. and later as a division within ICI,
`into a wholly owned British subsidiary known as ICI Bioscience Ltd.
`In 1993, ICI demerged its pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, and specialty chemicals
`13.
`businesses, from which it created the Zeneca Group, with the British company Zeneca Group PLC
`3
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 4 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`as its ultimate parent company.
`As a result of ICI’s demerger and creation of the Zeneca Group, ICI Bioscience Ltd.
`14.
`was demerged from ICI and merged into, renamed, or continued its business under the same or
`similar ownership and management as Zeneca Ltd., a wholly owned British subsidiary of Zeneca
`Group PLC.
`Before ICI’s demerger and creation of the Zeneca Group, ICI had a Central
`15.
`Toxicology Laboratory that performed and hired others to perform health and safety studies that
`were submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and the U.S. Environmental
`Protection Agency (“EPA”) to secure and maintain the registration of paraquat and other pesticides
`for use in the United States.
`As a result of ICI’s demerger and creation of the Zeneca Group, ICI’s Central
`16.
`Toxicology Laboratory became Zeneca Ltd.’s Central Toxicology Laboratory.
`After ICI’s demerger and creation of the Zeneca Group, Zeneca Ltd.’s Central
`17.
`Toxicology Laboratory continued to perform and hire others to perform health and safety studies
`that were submitted to EPA to secure and maintain the registration of paraquat and other pesticides
`for use in the United States.
`As a result of ICI’s demerger and creation of the Zeneca Group, ICI Americas was
`18.
`demerged from ICI and merged into, renamed, or continued its business under the same or similar
`ownership and management as Zeneca, Inc. (“Zeneca”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Zeneca
`Group PLC organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.
`In 1996, the Swiss pharmaceutical and chemical companies Ciba-Geigy Ltd. and
`19.
`Sandoz AG merged to create the Novartis Group, with the Swiss company Novartis AG as the
`ultimate parent company.
`As a result of the merger that created the Novartis Group, Ciba-Geigy Corporation,
`20.
`a wholly owned subsidiary of Ciba-Geigy Ltd. organized under the laws of the State of New York,
`was merged into or continued its business under the same or similar ownership and management
`as Novartis Crop Protection, Inc. (“NCPI”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Novartis AG organized
`under the laws of the State of Delaware.
`
`4
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 5 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`In 1999, the Swedish pharmaceutical company Astra AB merged with Zeneca
`21.
`Group PLC to create the British company AstraZeneca PLC, of which Zeneca Ltd. and Zeneca
`were wholly owned subsidiaries.
`In 2000, Novartis AG and AstraZeneca PLC spun off and merged the Novartis
`22.
`Group’s crop protection and seeds businesses and AstraZeneca’s agrochemicals business to create
`the Syngenta Group, a global group of companies focused solely on agribusiness, with Defendant
`Syngenta AG (“SAG”) as the ultimate parent company.
`As a result of the Novartis/AstraZeneca spinoff and merger that created the
`23.
`Syngenta Group, Zeneca Ltd. was merged into, renamed, or continued its business under the same
`or similar ownership and management as Syngenta Ltd., a wholly owned British subsidiary of
`SAG.
`
`As a result of the Novartis/AstraZeneca spinoff and merger that created the
`24.
`Syngenta Group, Zeneca Ltd.’s Central Toxicology Laboratory became Syngenta Ltd.’s Central
`Toxicology Laboratory.
`Since the Novartis/AstraZeneca spinoff and merger that created the Syngenta
`25.
`Group, Syngenta Ltd.’s Central Toxicology Laboratory has continued to perform and hire others
`to perform health and safety studies for submission to the EPA to secure and maintain the
`registration of paraquat and other pesticides for use in the United States.
`As a result of the Novartis/AstraZeneca spinoff and merger that created the
`26.
`Syngenta Group, NCPI and Zeneca were merged into and renamed, or continued to do their
`business under the same or similar ownership and management, as Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.
`(“SCPI”), a wholly owned subsidiary of SAG organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.
`In 2010, SCPI was converted into Defendant Syngenta Crop Protection LLC
`27.
`(“SCPLLC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of SAG organized and existing under the laws of the
`State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Greensboro, North Carolina.
`SAG is a successor in interest to the crop-protection business of its corporate
`28.
`predecessor Novartis AG.
`SAG is a successor in interest to the crop-protection business of its corporate
`29.
`5
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 6 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`predecessor AstraZeneca PLC.
`SAG is a successor in interest to the crop-protection business of its corporate
`30.
`predecessor Zeneca Group PLC.
`SAG is a successor in interest to the crop-protection business of its corporate
`31.
`predecessor Imperial Chemical Industries PLC, previously known as Imperial Chemical Industries
`Ltd.
`
`SAG is a successor in interest to the crop-protection business of its corporate
`32.
`predecessor ICI Bioscience Ltd.
`SAG is a successor in interest to the crop-protection business of its corporate
`33.
`predecessor Plant Protection Ltd.
`SCPLLC is a successor in interest to the crop-protection business of its corporate
`34.
`predecessor SCPI.
`SCPLLC is a successor in interest to the crop-protection business of its corporate
`35.
`predecessor NCPI.
`SCPLLC is a successor in interest to the crop-protection business of its corporate
`36.
`predecessor Ciba-Geigy Corporation.
`SCPLLC is a successor in interest to the crop-protection business of its corporate
`37.
`predecessor Zeneca Inc.
`SCPLLC is a successor by merger or continuation of business to its corporate
`38.
`predecessor ICI Americas Inc., previously known as Atlas Chemical Industries Inc., ICI North
`America Inc., ICI America Inc., and ICI United States Inc.
`SCPLLC does substantial business in the State of California, including the
`39.
`following:
`
`a. markets, advertises, distributes, sells, and delivers paraquat and other pesticides to
`distributors, dealers, applicators, and farmers in the State of California;
`b. secures and maintains the registration of paraquat and other pesticides with the
`EPA and the State of California to enable itself and others to manufacture, distribute,
`sell, and use these products in the State of California; and
`6
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 7 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`c. performs, hires others to perform, and funds or otherwise sponsors or otherwise
`funds the testing of pesticides in the State of California.
`SAG is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland,
`40.
`with its principal place of business in Basel, Switzerland.
`SAG is a holding company that owns stock or other ownership interests, either
`41.
`directly or indirectly, in other Syngenta Group companies, including SCPLLC.
`SAG is a management holding company.
`42.
`43.
`Syngenta Crop Protection AG (“SCPAG”), a Swiss corporation with its principal
`place of business in Basel, Switzerland, is one of SAG’s direct, wholly owned subsidiaries.
`SCPAG employs the global operational managers of production, distribution, and
`44.
`marketing for the Syngenta Group’s Crop Protection (“CP”) and Seeds Divisions.
`The Syngenta Group’s CP and Seeds Divisions are the business units through which
`45.
`SAG manages its CP and Seeds product lines.
`The Syngenta Group’s CP and Seeds Divisions are not and have never been
`46.
`corporations or other legal entities.
`SCP AG directly and wholly owns Syngenta International AG (“SIAG”).
`47.
`48.
`SIAG is the “nerve center” through which SAG manages the entire Syngenta Group.
`49.
`SIAG employs the “Heads” of the Syngenta Group’s CP and Seeds Divisions.
`50.
`SIAG also employs the “Heads” and senior staff of various global functions of the
`Syngenta Group, including Human Resources, Corporate Affairs, Global Operations, Research
`and Development, Legal and Taxes, and Finance.
`Virtually all of the Syngenta Group’s global “Heads” and their senior staff are
`51.
`housed in the same office space in Basel, Switzerland.
`SAG is the indirect parent of SCPLLC through multiple layers of corporate
`52.
`ownership:
`a. SAG directly and wholly owns Syngenta Participations AG;
`b. Syngenta Participations AG directly and wholly owns Seeds JV C.V.;
`c. Seeds JV C.V. directly and wholly owns Syngenta Corporation;
`7
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 8 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`d. Syngenta Corporation directly and wholly owns Syngenta Seeds, LLC;
`e. Syngenta Seeds, LLC directly and wholly owns SCPLLC.
`Before SCPI was converted to SCPLLC, it was incorporated in Delaware, had its
`53.
`principal place of business in North Carolina, and had its own board of directors.
`SCPI’s sales accounted for more than 47% of the sales for the entire Syngenta
`54.
`Group in 2019.
`SAG has purposefully organized the Syngenta Group, including SCPLLC, in such
`55.
`a way as to attempt to evade the authority of courts in jurisdictions in which it does substantial
`business.
`Although the formal legal structure of the Syngenta Group is designed to suggest
`56.
`otherwise, SAG in fact exercises an unusually high degree of control over its country-specific
`business units, including SCPLLC, through a “matrix management’’ system of functional
`reporting to global “Product Heads” in charge of the Syngenta Group’s unincorporated Crop
`Protection and Seeds Divisions, and to global “Functional Heads” in charge of human resources,
`corporate affairs, global operations, research and development, legal and taxes, and finance.
`The lines of authority and control within the Syngenta Group do not follow its
`57.
`formal legal structure, but instead follow this global “functional” management structure.
`SAG controls the actions of its far-flung subsidiaries, including SCPLLC, through
`58.
`this global “functional” management structure.
`SAG’s board of directors has established a Syngenta Executive Committee (“SEC”),
`59.
`which is responsible for the active leadership and the operative management of the Syngenta
`Group, including SPLLC.
`The SEC consists of the CEO and various global Heads, which currently are:
`60.
`a. The Chief Executive Officer;
`b. Group General Counsel;
`c. The President of Global Crop Protection;
`d. The Chief Financial Officer;
`e. The President of Global Seeds; and
`8
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 9 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`f. The Head of Human Resources;
`SIAG employs all of the members of the Executive Committee.
`61.
`62.
`Global Syngenta Group corporate policies require SAG subsidiaries, including
`SPLLC, to operate under the direction and control of the SEC and other unincorporated global
`management teams.
`SAG’s board of directors meets five to six times a year.
`63.
`64.
`In contrast, SCPI’s board of directors rarely met, either in person or by telephone,
`and met only a handful of times over the last decade before SCPI became SCPLLC.
`65. Most, if not all, of the SCPI board’s formal actions, including selecting and
`removing SCPI officers, were taken by unanimous written consent pursuant to directions from the
`SEC or other Syngenta Group global or regional managers that were delivered via e-mail to SCPI
`board members.
`Since SCPI became SCPLLC, decisions that are nominally made by the board or
`66.
`managers of SCPLLC in fact continue to be directed by the SEC or other Syngenta Group global
`or regional managers.
`Similarly, Syngenta Seeds, Inc.’s board of directors appointed and removed SCPI
`67.
`board members at the direction of the SEC or other Syngenta Group global or regional managers.
`Since SCPI became SCPLLC, the appointment and removal of the manager(s) of
`68.
`SCPLLC continues to be directed by the SEC or other Syngenta Group global or regional managers.
`The management structure of the Syngenta Group’s CP Division, of which
`69.
`SCPLLC is a part, is not defined by legal, corporate relationships, but by functional reporting
`relationships that disregard corporate boundaries.
`Atop the CP Division is the CP Leadership Team (or another body with a different
`70.
`name but substantially the same composition and functions), which includes the President of
`Global Crop Protection, the CP region Heads (including SCPLLC President Vern Hawkins), and
`various global corporate function Heads.
`The CP Leadership Team meets bi-monthly to develop strategy for new products,
`71.
`markets, and operational efficiencies and to monitor performance of the Syngenta Group’s
`9
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 10 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`worldwide CP business.
`Under the CP Leadership Team are regional leadership teams, including the North
`72.
`America Regional Leadership Team (or another body with a different name but substantially the
`same composition and functions), which oversees the Syngenta Croup’s U.S. and Canadian CP
`business (and when previously known as the NAFTA Regional Leadership Team, also oversaw
`the Syngenta Group’s Mexican CP business).
`The North America Regional Leadership Team is chaired by SCPLLC’s president
`73.
`and includes employees of SCPLLC and the Syngenta Group’s Canadian CP company (and when
`previously known as the NAFTA Regional Leadership Team, also included employees of the
`Syngenta Group’s Mexican CP company).
`The Syngenta Group’s U.S. and Canadian CP companies, including SCPLLC,
`74.
`report to the North America Regional Leadership Team, which reports the CP Leadership Team,
`which reports to the SEC, which reports to SAG’s board of directors.
`Some members of the North America Regional Leadership Team, including some
`75.
`SCPLLC employees, report or have in the past reported not to their nominal superiors within the
`companies that employ them, but directly to the Syngenta Group’s global Heads.
`Syngenta Group global Heads that supervise SCPLLC employees participate and
`76.
`have in the past participated in the performance reviews of these employees and in setting their
`compensation.
`The Syngenta Group’s functional reporting lines have resulted in employees of
`77.
`companies, including SCPLLC, reporting to officers of remote parent companies, officers of
`affiliates with no corporate relationship other than through SAG, or officers of subsidiary
`companies.
`SCPLLC performs its functions according to its role in the CP Division structure:
`78.
`a. CP Division development projects are proposed at the global level, ranked and
`funded at the global level after input from functional entities such as the CP
`Leadership Team and the North America Regional Leadership Team, and given final
`approval by the SEC;
`
`10
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 11 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`b. New CP products are developed by certain Syngenta Group companies or
`functional groups that manage and conduct research and development functions for
`the entire CP Division;
`c. These products are then tested by other Syngenta Group companies, including
`SCPLLC, under the direction and supervision of the SEC, the CP Leadership Team,
`or other Syngenta Group global managers;
`d. Syngenta Group companies, including SCPLLC, do not contract with or
`compensate each other for this testing;
`e. Rather, the cost of such testing is included in the testing companies’ operating
`budgets, which are established and approved by the Syngenta Group’s global product
`development managers and the SEC;
`f. If a product shows promise based on this testing and the potential markets for the
`product, either global or regional leaders (depending on whether the target market is
`global or regional), not individual Syngenta Group companies such as SCPLLC,
`decide whether to sell the product;
`g. Decisions to sell the product must be approved by the SEC;
`h. The products that are sold all bear the same Syngenta trademark and logo.
`SCPLLC is subject to additional oversight and control by Syngenta Group global
`79.
`managers through a system of “reserved powers” established by SAG and applicable to all
`Syngenta Group companies.
`These “reserved powers” require Syngenta Croup companies to seek approval for
`80.
`certain decisions from higher levels within the Syngenta Group’s functional reporting structure.
`For example, although SAG permits Syngenta Croup companies to handle small
`81.
`legal matters on their own, under the “reserved powers” system, SAG’s Board of Directors must
`approve settlements of certain types of lawsuits against Syngenta Group companies, including
`SCPLLC, if their value exceeds an amount specified in the “reserved powers.”
`Similarly, the appointments of senior managers at SCPLLC must be approved by
`82.
`higher levels than SCPLLC’s own management, board of directors, or even its direct legal owner.
`11
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 12 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Although SCPLLC takes the formal action necessary to appoint its own senior
`83.
`managers, this formal action is in fact merely the rubber-stamping of decisions that have already
`been made by the Syngenta Group’s global management.
`Although SAG subsidiaries, including SCPLLC, pay lip service to legal formalities
`84.
`that give the appearance of authority to act independently, in practice many of their acts are
`directed or pre-approved by the Syngenta Group’s global management.
`SAG and the global management of the Syngenta Group restrict the authority of
`85.
`SCPLLC to act independently in areas including:
`a. Product development;
`b. Product testing (among other things, SAG and the global management of the
`Syngenta Group require SCPLLC to use Syngenta Ltd.’s Central Toxicology
`Laboratory to design, perform, or oversee product safety testing that SCPLLC
`submits to the EPA in support of the registrations of paraquat and other pesticides);
`c. Production;
`d. Marketing;
`e. Sales;
`f. Human resources;
`g. Communications and public affairs;
`h. Corporate structure and ownership
`i. Asset sales and acquisitions
`j. Key appointments to boards, committees and management positions;
`k. Compensation packages;
`l. Training for high-level positions; and
`m. Finance (including day-to-day cash management) and tax.
`Under the Syngenta Group’s functional management system, global managers
`86.
`initiate, and the global Head of Human Resources oversees, international assignments and
`compensation of managers employed by one Syngenta subsidiary to do temporary work for another
`Syngenta subsidiary in another country. This international assignment program aims, in part, to
`12
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 13 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`improve Syngenta Group-wide succession planning by developing corporate talent to make
`employees fit for higher positions within the global Syngenta Group of companies.
`Under this international assignment program, at the instance of Syngenta Group
`87.
`global managers, SCPLLC officers and employees have been “seconded” to work at other SAG
`subsidiaries, and officers and employees of other Syngenta Group subsidiaries have been
`“seconded” to work at SCPLLC.
`The Syngenta Group’s functional management system includes a central global
`88.
`finance function—known as Syngenta Group Treasury—for the entire Syngenta Group.
`The finances of all Syngenta Group companies are governed by a global treasury
`89.
`policy that subordinates the financial interests of SAG’s subsidiaries, including SCPLLC, to the
`interests of the Syngenta Group as a whole.
`Under the Syngenta Group’s global treasury policy, Syngenta Group Treasury
`90.
`controls daily cash sweeps from subsidiaries such as SCPLLC, holds the cash on account, and
`lends it to other subsidiaries that need liquidity.
`The Syngenta Group’s global treasury policy does not allow SAG subsidiaries such
`91.
`as SCPLLC to seek or obtain financing from non-Syngenta entities without the approval of
`Syngenta Group Treasury.
`Syngenta Group Treasury also decides whether SCPLLC will issue a dividend or
`92.
`distribution to its direct parent company, and how much that dividend will be.
`SCPLLC’s board or management approves dividends and distributions mandated
`93.
`by Syngenta Group Treasury without any meaningful deliberation.
`SAG, through its agent or alter ego, SCPLLC, does substantial business in the State
`94.
`of California, in the ways previously alleged as to SCPLLC.
`
`
`2. Chevron
`95.
`Chevron Chemical Company (“Chevron Chemical”) was a corporation organized
`in 1928 under the laws of the State of Delaware.
`In 1997, Chevron Chemical was merged into Chevron Chemical Company LLC
`96.
`(“Chevron Chemical LLC”), a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
`13
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 14 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Delaware.
`In the mid-2000s, Chevron Chemical LLC was merged into or continued to operate
`97.
`under the same or similar ownership and management as Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP
`(“CP Chemical”).
`CP Chemical is a successor in interest to the crop-protection business of its
`98.
`corporate predecessor Chevron Chemical LLC.
`CP Chemical is a successor by merger or continuation of business to its corporate
`99.
`predecessor Chevron Chemical.
`100. Defendant Chevron U.S.A. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
`of the State of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business in the State of California.
`101. Defendant Chevron U.S.A. is a successor in interest to the crop-protection business
`of its corporate predecessor Chevron Chemical LLC.
`102. Defendant Chevron U.S.A. is a successor in interest to the crop-protection business
`of its corporate predecessor CP Chemical.
`In the mid-2000s, Chevron USA entered into an agreement in which it expressly
`103.
`assumed the liabilities of Chevron Chemical and Chevron Chemical LLC arising from Chevron
`Chemical’s then-discontinued agrichemical business, which included the design, registration,
`manufacture, formulation, packaging, labeling, distribution, marketing, and sale of paraquat
`products in the United States as alleged in this Complaint.
`
`B. Paraquat manufacture, distribution, and sale
`ICI, a legacy company of Syngenta, claims to have discovered the herbicidal
`104.
`properties of paraquat in 1955.
`105. The leading manufacturer of paraquat is Syngenta, which (as ICI) developed the
`active ingredient in paraquat in the early 1960s.
`ICI produced the first commercial paraquat formulation and registered it in England
`106.
`in 1962.
`107. Paraquat was marketed in 1962 under the brand name Gramoxone.
`108. Paraquat first became commercially available for use in the United States in 1964.
`14
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 15 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`In or about 1964, ICI and Chevron Chemical entered into agreements regarding the
`109.
`licensing and distribution of paraquat (“the ICI-Chevron Chemical Agreements”).
`In or about 1971, ICI Americas became a party to the ICI-Chevron Chemical
`110.
`Agreements on the same terms as ICI.
`111. The ICI-Chevron Chemical Agreements were renewed or otherwise remained in
`effect until about 1986.
`In the ICI-Chevron Chemical Agreements, ICI and ICI Americas granted Chevron
`112.
`Chemical a license to their patents and technical information to permit Chevron Chemical to
`formulate or have formulated, use, and sell paraquat in the United States and to grant sub-licenses
`to others to do so.
`In the ICI-Chevron Chemical Agreements, Chevron Chemical granted ICI and ICI
`113.
`Americas a license to its patents and technical information to permit ICI and ICI Americas to
`formulate or have formulated, use, and sell paraquat throughout the world and to grant sub-licenses
`to others to do so.
`In the ICI-Chevron Chemical Agreements, ICI and ICI Americas and Chevron
`114.
`Chemical agreed to exchange patent and technical information regarding paraquat.
`In the ICI-Chevron Chemical Agreements, ICI and ICI Americas granted Chevron
`115.
`Chemical exclusive rights to distribute and sell paraquat in the United States.
`In the ICI-Chevron Chemical Agreements, ICI and ICI Americas granted Chevron
`116.
`Chemical a license to distribute and sell paraquat in the U.S. under the ICI-trademarked brand
`name Gramoxone.
`ICI and ICI Americas and Chevron Chemical entered into the ICI-Chevron
`117.
`Chemical Agreements to divide the worldwide market for paraquat between them.
`118. Under the ICI-Chevron Chemical Agreements, Chevron Chemical distributed and
`sold paraquat in the U.S. and ICI and ICI Americas distributed and sold paraquat outside the United
`States.
`
`119. Under the ICI-Chevron Chemical Agreements and related agreements, both ICI and
`ICI Americas and Chevron Chemical distributed and sold paraquat under the ICI-trademarked
`15
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02083-EMC Document 1 Filed 03/25/21 Page 16 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`brand name Gramoxone.
`120. Under the ICI-Chevron Chemical Agreements, ICI and ICI Americas and Chevron
`Chemical exchanged p