ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

In 1993, the State of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA") brought administrative enforcement proceedings arising out of the Company's alleged failure to obtain proper permits for certain pollution control equipment at one of the Company's processing facilities in Illinois. In 1998, the Illinois EPA filed an administrative enforcement proceeding arising out of certain alleged permit exceedances relating to the same facility. Also, in 1998 the Company voluntarily reported to the Illinois EPA certain other permit exceedances related to other processes at that same facility, and in 1999 Illinois EPA issued a Notice of Violation relating to those exceedances. In 2000, the Company voluntarily disclosed certain other permit exceedances at the same facility. In 1998, the State of Illinois filed a civil administrative action against the Company alleging violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder, arising from a one-time release of denatured ethanol at one of the Company's Illinois distribution facilities. The Company is in discussions with the Illinois EPA to settle all of the pending matters with the State. In January 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") issued a Notice of Violation to the Company for another Illinois facility regarding alleged emissions violations and the failure to obtain proper permits for various equipment at that facility. That matter has been referred to the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), and the Company has met with the U.S. EPA and DOJ regarding settlement of that matter. In management's opinion, the settlement of these proceedings, all seeking compliance with applicable environmental permits and regulations, will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse affect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations.

On July 31, 2000, the federal environmental authorities in Brazil ("IBAMA") issued an administrative notice to the Company requiring payment of approximately $5.6 million for discharge of industrial wastewater from its facility located in Rondonopolis. The Company appealed that penalty, and the penalty was reduced to approximately $400,000. The Company pursued a further appeal and in October 2001 the Company obtained a favorable ruling on the appeal and no penalty was assessed. Also, in December 2000, IBAMA notified the Company that it had not fulfilled certain agreements its predecessor had entered into regarding tree farming required to allow the harvesting of wood for fuel use. A penalty of approximately $750,000 was proposed based on the wood growth shortfall. The Company submitted evidence that the growth shortfall was approximately one-third of that estimated by the government and IBAMA generally accepted that figure. In May 2001, the Company entered into a settlement which imposed no penalty, but requires implementation of a reforesting project anticipated to cost approximately $200,000.

The Company is involved in approximately 25 administrative and judicial proceedings in which it has been identified as a potentially responsible party ("PRP") under the federal Superfund law and its state analogs for the study and clean-up of sites contaminated by material discharged into the environment. In all of these matters, there are numerous PRPs. Due to various factors such as the required level of remediation and participation in the clean-up effort by others, the Company's future clean-up costs at these sites cannot be reasonably estimated. In management's opinion, these proceedings will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse affect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations.

LITIGATION REGARDING ALLEGED ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES

The Company is currently a defendant in various lawsuits related to alleged anticompetitive practices by the Company as described in more detail below. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions unless they can be settled on terms deemed acceptable to the parties.

GOVERNMENTAL MATTERS

Federal grand juries in the Northern Districts of Illinois, California and Georgia, under the direction of the DOJ, have been investigating possible violations by the Company and others with respect to the sale of lysine, citric acid and high fructose corn syrup, respectively. In connection with an agreement with the DOJ in fiscal 1997, the Company paid the United States fines of $100 million. This agreement constituted a global resolution of all matters between the DOJ and the Company and brought to a close all DOJ investigations of the Company. The federal grand juries in the Northern Districts of Illinois (lysine) and Georgia (high fructose corn syrup) have been closed.

The Company has received notice that certain foreign governmental entities were commencing investigations to determine whether anticompetitive practices occurred in their jurisdictions. Except for the investigations being conducted by the Commission of the European Communities and the Brazilian Department of Protection and Economic Defense as described below, all such matters have been resolved as previously reported. In June 1997, the Company and several of its European subsidiaries were notified that the Commission of the European Communities had initiated an investigation as to possible anticompetitive practices in the amino acid markets, in particular the lysine market, in the European Union. On October 29, 1998, the Commission of the European Communities initiated formal proceedings against the Company and others and adopted a Statement of Objections. The reply of the Company was filed on February 1, 1999 and the hearing was held on March 1, 1999. On August 8, 1999, the Commission of the European Communities adopted a supplementary Statement of Objections expanding the period of involvement as to certain other companies. On June 7, 2000, the Commission of the European Communities adopted a decision imposing a fine against the Company in the amount of EUR 47.3 million. The Company has appealed this decision. In September 1997, the Company received a request for information from the Commission of the European Communities with respect to an investigation being conducted by that Commission into the possible existence of certain agreements and/or concerted practices in the citric acid market in the European Union. On March 28, 2000, the Commission of European Communities initiated formal proceedings against the Company and others and adopted a Statement of Objections. The reply of the Company was filed on June 9, 2000. In November 1998, a European subsidiary of the Company received a request for information from the Commission of the European Communities with respect to an investigation being conducted by that Commission into the possible existence of certain agreements and/or concerted practices in the sodium gluconate market in the European Union. On May 17, 2000, the Commission of European Communities initiated formal proceedings against the Company and others and adopted a Statement of Objections. The reply of Company was filed on September 1, 2000. On October 2, 2001, the Commission of the European Communities adopted a decision imposing a fine against the Company in the amount of EUR 10.3 million. The Company intends to appeal this decision. On May 8, 2000, a Brazilian subsidiary of the Company was notified of the commencement of an administrative proceeding by the Department of Protection and Economic Defense relative to possible anticompetitive practices in the lysine market in Brazil. On July 3, 2000, the Brazilian subsidiary of the Company filed a Statement of Defense in this proceeding.

The ultimate outcome and materiality of the proceedings of the Commission of the European Communities and the Brazilian Department of Protection and Economic Defense cannot presently be determined. The Company may become the subject of similar antitrust investigations conducted by the applicable regulatory authorities of other countries.

HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP ACTIONS

The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in thirty-one antitrust suits involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup in the United States. Thirty of these actions have been brought as putative class actions.

FEDERAL ACTIONS. Twenty-two of these putative class actions allege violations of federal antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup, and seek injunctions against continued alleged illegal conduct, treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative classes in these cases comprise certain direct purchasers of high fructose corn syrup during certain periods in the 1990s. These twenty-two actions have been transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois and consolidated under the caption In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1087 and Master File No. 95-1477. On April 3, 2001, the Company and the other defendants filed motions for summary judgment. On August 23, 2001, the Court entered a written order granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The class plaintiffs have noticed an appeal of this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On January 14, 1997, the Company, along with other companies, was named a defendant in a non-class action antitrust suit involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup and corn syrup. This action which is encaptioned Gray & Co. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al, No. 97-69-AS, and was filed in federal court in Oregon, alleges violations of federal antitrust laws and Oregon and Michigan state antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup, and seeks treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs of an unspecified amount. This action was transferred for pretrial proceedings to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. On August 29, 2001, the Court stayed this case pending the conclusion of the appeal of the class plaintiffs in In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1087 and Master File No. 95-1477.

STATE ACTIONS. The Company, along with other companies, also has been named as a defendant in seven putative class action antitrust suits filed in California state court involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup. These California actions allege violations of the California antitrust and unfair competition laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup, and seek treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, restitution and other unspecified relief. One of the California putative classes comprises certain direct purchasers of high fructose corn syrup in the State of California during certain periods in the 1990s. This action was filed on October 17, 1995 in Superior Court for the County of Stanislaus, California and encaptioned Kagome Foods, Inc. v Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. et al., Civil Action No. 37236. This action has been removed to federal court and consolidated with the federal class action litigation pending in the Central District of Illinois referred to above. The other six California putative classes comprise certain indirect purchasers of high fructose corn syrup and dextrose in the State of California during certain periods in the 1990s. One such action was filed on July 21, 1995 in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, California and is encaptioned Borgeson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. BC131940. This action and four other indirect purchaser actions have been coordinated before a single court in Stanislaus County, California under the caption, Food Additives (HFCS) cases, Master File No. 39693. The other four actions are encaptioned, Goings v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 750276 (Filed on July 21, 1995, Orange County Superior Court); Rainbow Acres v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 974271 (Filed on November 22, 1995, San Francisco County Superior Court); Patane v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 212610 (Filed on January 17, 1996, Sonoma County Superior Court); and St. Stan's Brewing Co. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 37237 (Filed on October 17, 1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court). On October 8, 1997, Varni Brothers Corp. filed a complaint in intervention with respect to the coordinated action pending in Stanislaus County Superior Court, asserting the same claims as those advanced in the consolidated class action.

The Company, along with other companies, also has been named a defendant in a putative class action antitrust suit filed in Alabama state court. The Alabama action alleges violations of the Alabama, Michigan and Minnesota antitrust laws, including allegations that defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup, and seeks an injunction against continued illegal conduct, damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in the Alabama action comprises certain indirect purchasers in Alabama, Michigan and Minnesota during the period March 18, 1994 to March 18, 1996. This action was filed on March 18, 1996 in the Circuit Court of Coosa County, Alabama, and is encaptioned Caldwell v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 96-17. On April 23, 1997, the court granted the defendants' motion to sever and dismiss the non-Alabama claims. On March 27, 2000, defendants moved for summary judgment in light of a recent Alabama Supreme Court case holding that the Alabama antitrust laws apply only to intrastate commerce. On June 28, 2000, and August 11, 2000, plaintiffs filed amended complaints. On September 6, 2000, defendants moved to dismiss or in the alternative to strike plaintiffs' amended complaints. These motions are currently pending.

LYSINE ACTIONS

The Company, along with other companies, had been named as a defendant in twenty-three putative class action antitrust suits involving the sale of lysine in the United States and two putative class action antitrust suits in Canada involving the sale of lysine in Canada. Except for the actions specifically described below, all such suits have been settled, dismissed or withdrawn.

CANADIAN ACTIONS. The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in one putative class action antitrust suit filed in Ontario Court (General Division) in which the plaintiffs allege the defendants reached agreements with one another as to the price at which each of them would sell lysine to customers in Ontario and as to the total volume of lysine that each company would supply in Ontario in violation of Sections 45(1)(c) and 61(1)(b) of the Competition Act. The putative class is comprised of certain indirect purchasers in Ontario during the period from June 1, 1992 to June 27, 1995. The plaintiffs seek C$25 million for violations of the Competition Act, C$10 million in punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, interest and costs of the action. This action was served upon the Company on June 11, 1999 and is encaptioned Rein Minnema and Minnema Farms Ltd. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Court File No. G23495-99. The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a respondent in a motion seeking authorization to institute a class action filed on or about October 20, 1999 in Superior Court in the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal, in which the applicants allege the respondents conspired, combined, agreed or arranged to prevent or lessen, unduly, competition with respect to the sale of lysine in Canada in violation of Section 45(1)(c) of the Competition Act. The putative class is comprised of certain indirect purchasers in Quebec after June 1992. The applicants seek at least C$4.4 million, costs of investigation, attorneys' fees and interest. This motion is encaptioned Option Consommateurs, et al v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Court No. 500-06-000089-991.

STATE ACTION. The Company has been named as a defendant, along with other companies, in one putative class action antitrust suit alleging violations of the Alabama antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of lysine, and seeking an injunction against continued alleged illegal conduct, damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in this action comprises certain indirect purchasers of lysine in the State of Alabama during certain periods in the 1990s. This action was filed on August 17, 1995 in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Alabama, and is encaptioned Ashley v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 95-336. On March 13, 1998, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. Subsequently, the plaintiff amended his complaint to add approximately 300 individual plaintiffs. On March 23, 2000, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in light of a recent Alabama Supreme Court case holding that the Alabama antitrust laws apply only to intrastate commerce. On August 11, 2000, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 15, 2000, defendants moved to dismiss or in the alternative to strike plaintiffs' amended complaint. On June 19, 2001, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for restraint of trade in interstate commerce and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' restraint of trade in intrastate commerce claim, however, on July 3, 2001, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this claim. On July 18, 2001, plaintiffs moved to amend, alter or vacate the Court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim. On July 24, 2001, plaintiffs noticed an appeal of that part of the Court's order granting defendants' summary judgment motion. On October 9, 2001, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend, alter or vacate the Court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim.

CITRIC ACID ACTIONS

The Company, along with other companies, had been named as a defendant in fourteen putative class action antitrust suits and two non-class action antitrust suits involving the sale of citric acid in the United States and five putative class action antitrust suits in Canada involving the sale of citric acid in Canada. Except for the action specifically described below, all such suits have been settled or dismissed.

CANADIAN ACTIONS. The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in five actions filed pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, in which the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Competition Act with respect to the sale of citric acid in Canada. One of these actions was filed on or about October 4, 1999 in the Superior Court of Justice in Newmarket, Ontario, and encaptioned Ashworth v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Court file No. 53510/99. The putative class is comprised of certain indirect purchasers in Ontario during the period from July 1, 1991 to June 27, 1995. The plaintiffs in this action seek general damages in the amount of C$30 million and punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of C$30 million, interest, costs and fees. The second action was filed on or about October 12, 1999 in the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario, and encaptioned Fairlee Fruit Juice Limited v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Court File No. 32562/99. The plaintiffs in this action seek general damages in the amount of C$300 million, punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of C$20 million, interest, costs and fees. The third action was filed in the Superior Court of Justice in Barrie, Ontario under the Class Proceedings Act. In that action, encaptioned E. D. Smith & Sons, Limited v. Archer Daniels Midland Company et al., Court File No. 99-B673, the putative class is persons or corporations who were resident or carried on business in Ontario and who were direct and indirect purchasers of citric acid between July 1, 1991 and July 27, 1995. The action claims damages in the amount of C$24 million for breach of the Competition Act, conspiracy and infliction of economic injury, plus C$10 million for punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, plus interest and costs. All three Ontario actions referred to above have now been transferred to the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario. The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a respondent in a motion seeking authorization to institute a class action filed on or about October 20, 1999 in Superior Court in the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal, in which the applicants allege the respondents conspired, combined, agreed or arranged to prevent or lessen, unduly, competition with respect to the sale of citric acid in Canada in violation of Section 45(1)(c) of the Competition Act. The putative class is comprised of certain indirect purchasers in Quebec since July 1991. The applicants seek C$3.1 million, the costs of investigation, attorneys' fees and interest. This motion is encaptioned Option Consommateurs, et al. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland-Company, et al., Court No.500-06-000094-991. The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in an action concerning the price at which the Company sold citric acid between 1991 and 1995, commenced in The Supreme Court of British Columbia, encaptioned Sun-Rype Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company et al., Court File No. L003223 (Vancouver Registry), pursuant to the British Columbia Class Proceedings Act. An unspecified amount of damages is claimed for conspiracy, intentional interference with economic relations and breach of the Competition Act, in addition to punitive and exemplary damages and interest and costs. The plaintiffs and defendants in the five actions described above have executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay the plaintiffs C$2.23 million. The settlement agreement was approved by the Ontario and British Columbia courts on October 23, 2001 and November 9, 2001, respectively, and is subject to the approval of the court in Quebec.

HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP/CITRIC ACID STATE CLASS ACTIONS

The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in five putative class action antitrust suits involving the sale of both high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. Two of these actions allege violations of the California antitrust and unfair competition laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seek treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, restitution and other unspecified relief. The putative class in one of these California cases comprises certain direct purchasers of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid in the State of California during the period January 1, 1992 until at least October 1995. This action was filed on October 11, 1995 in the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, California and is entitled Gangi Bros. Packing Co. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 37217. The putative class in the other California case comprises certain indirect purchasers of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid in the state of California during the period October 12, 1991 until November 20, 1995. This action was filed on November 20, 1995 in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is encaptioned MCFH, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 974120. The California Judicial Council has bifurcated the citric acid and high fructose corn syrup claims in these actions and coordinated them with other actions in San Francisco County Superior Court and Stanislaus County Superior Court. As noted in prior filings, the Company accepted a settlement agreement with counsel for the citric acid plaintiff class. This settlement received final court approval and the case was dismissed on September 30, 1998. The Company, along with other companies, also has been named as a defendant in one putative class action antitrust suit filed in West Virginia state court involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. This action also alleges violations of the West Virginia antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in the West Virginia action comprises certain entities within the State of West Virginia that purchased products containing high fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid for resale from at least 1992 until 1994. This action was filed on October 26, 1995, in the Circuit Court for Boone County, West Virginia, and is encaptioned Freda's v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 95-C-125. The Company, along with other companies, also has been named as a defendant in a putative class action antitrust suit filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. This action alleges violations of the District of Columbia antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in the District of Columbia action comprises certain persons within the District of Columbia that purchased products containing high fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid during the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1994. This action was filed on April 12, 1996 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, and is encaptioned Holder v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 96-2975. On November 13, 1998, plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted. The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in a putative class action antitrust suit filed in Kansas state court involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid. This action alleges violations of the Kansas antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount, court costs and other unspecified relief. The putative class in the Kansas action comprises certain persons within the State of Kansas that purchased products containing high fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid during at least the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1994. This action was filed on May 7, 1996 in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas and is encaptioned Waugh v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Case No. 96-C-2029. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is currently pending.

HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP/CITRIC ACID/LYSINE STATE CLASS ACTIONS

The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in six putative class action antitrust suits filed in California state court involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine. These actions allege violations of the California antitrust and unfair competition laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine, and seek treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, restitution and other unspecified relief. One of the putative classes is comprised of certain direct purchasers of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine in the State of California during a certain period in the 1990s. This action was filed on December 18, 1995 in the Superior Court for Stanislaus County, California and is encaptioned Nu Laid Foods, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 39693. The other five putative classes comprise certain indirect purchasers of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and/or lysine in the State of California during certain periods in the 1990s. One such action was filed on December 14, 1995 in the Superior Court for Stanislaus County, California and is encaptioned Batson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 39680. The other actions are encaptioned Abbott v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. 41014 (Filed on December 21, 1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court); Noldin v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. 41015 (Filed on December 21, 1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court); Guzman v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. 41013 (Filed on December 21, 1995, Stanislaus County Superior Court) and Ricci v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. 96-AS-00383 (Filed on February 6, 1996, Sacramento County Superior Court). As noted in prior filings, the plaintiffs in these actions and the lysine defendants have executed a settlement agreement that has been approved by the court, and the California Judicial Council has bifurcated the citric acid and high fructose corn syrup claims and coordinated them with other actions in San Francisco County Superior Court and Stanislaus County Superior Court.

MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE ACTIONS

The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in twelve putative class action antitrust suits involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers in the United States and three putative class action antitrust suits in Canada involving the sale of nucleotides, including monosodium glutamate, in Canada.

CANADIAN ACTIONS. The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a defendant in three actions filed pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act in which the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Competition Act with respect to the sale of nucleotides in Canada. The putative classes are comprised of direct and indirect purchasers in Canada during the period from January 1, 1990 to November 1, 1999. The plaintiffs in these actions seek general, punitive and exemplary damages and "disgorgement of ill-gotten overcharges", plus prejudgment interest. The first action was filed on or about September 7, 2001 in the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, and is encaptioned Long Duc Ngo and Christopher McLean v. Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., et al., Court File No. 37708. The second action was filed on or about October 4, 2001 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Vancouver and is encaptioned Abel Lam and Klas Consulting & Investment Ltd. v. Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., et al. The third action was filed on or about October 18, 2001 in the "Cour Superieure" in the Province of Quebec and District of Quebec, and is encaptioned Colette Brochu v. Ajinomoto U.S.A. Inc., et al., No.: 200-06-000019-011.

FEDERAL ACTIONS. Eight of these putative class actions allege violations of federal antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the price of monosodium glutamate, disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate, and seek various relief, including treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative classes in these cases comprise certain direct purchasers of monosodium glutamate, disodium inosinate and/or disodium guanylate during certain periods in the 1990's to the present. The Company has never produced or sold disodium inosinate or disodium guanylate. One such action was filed on October 27, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned Thorp, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., NoC99 4752 (VRW). The second action was filed on October 27, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned Premium Ingredients, Ltd. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., No. C 99 4742(MJJ). The third action was filed on October 28, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned Felbro Food Products v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., No.C99 4761(MJJ). The fourth action was filed on November 17, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is encaptioned First Spice Mixing Co., Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., No. C 99 4977 (PJH). The fifth action was filed on November 23, 1999 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and is encaptioned Diversified Foods and Seasonings, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., Inc. et al., No. 99 CV 5501. The sixth action was filed on December 16, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and is encaptioned M. Phil Yen, Inc. v. Ajinomoto Co. Inc., et al., No. 99 Div 06514 (EK). The seventh action was filed on January 27, 2000 in the Northern District of California and is encaptioned Chicago Ingredients, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., No. C 00 0308 (JL). The eighth action was filed on April 12, 2000 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is encaptioned Heller Seasonings & Ingredients, Inc. v. Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., et al., No. 00-CV-1905. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated these actions for coordinated pretrial discovery in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On June 3, 2001, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The parties are currently in discovery.

STATE ACTION. The Company, along with at least one other company, has been named as a defendant in four putative class action antitrust suits filed in California state court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers. These actions allege violations of California antitrust and unfair competition laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the price of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers, and seek treble damages of an unspecified amount, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative classes in these actions comprise certain indirect purchasers of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers in the State of California during certain periods in the 1990's. The first action originally was filed on June 25, 1999 in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is encaptioned Fu's Garden Restaurant v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Civil Action No. 304471. The second action was filed on January 14, 2000 in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is encaptioned JMN Restaurant Management, Inc. v. Ajinomoto Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 309236. The third action was filed on May 2, 2000 in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is encaptioned Tanuki Restaurant and Lilly Zapanta v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al, Civil Action No. 311871. The fourth action was filed on May 24, 2000 in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is encaptioned Tasty Sunrise Burgers v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 312373. On June 19, 2000, the Court consolidated all of these cases for pretrial and trial purposes.