-----BEGIN PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE----- Proc-Type: 2001,MIC-CLEAR Originator-Name: webmaster@www.sec.gov Originator-Key-Asymmetric: MFgwCgYEVQgBAQICAf8DSgAwRwJAW2sNKK9AVtBzYZmr6aGjlWyK3XmZv3dTINen TWSM7vrzLADbmYQaionwg5sDW3P6oaM5D3tdezXMm7z1T+B+twIDAQAB MIC-Info: RSA-MD5,RSA, NkJH1/kKHXDdP73AXkbqQuQMq73U5xcDxPQvVvTMtTXzm9fS0ODLlvBsvltDbRcM WUzxiwwDQTHzv97SdAg5ug== 0000048305-96-000014.txt : 19960802 0000048305-96-000014.hdr.sgml : 19960802 ACCESSION NUMBER: 0000048305-96-000014 CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE: 8-K PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT: 2 CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT: 19960724 ITEM INFORMATION: Other events FILED AS OF DATE: 19960801 SROS: NYSE FILER: COMPANY DATA: COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: HONEYWELL INC CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0000048305 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: AUTO CONTROLS FOR REGULATING RESIDENTIAL & COMML ENVIRONMENT [3822] IRS NUMBER: 410415010 STATE OF INCORPORATION: DE FISCAL YEAR END: 1231 FILING VALUES: FORM TYPE: 8-K SEC ACT: 1934 Act SEC FILE NUMBER: 000-20629 FILM NUMBER: 96602453 BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET 1: HONEYWELL PLZ CITY: MINNEAPOLIS STATE: MN ZIP: 55408 BUSINESS PHONE: 6129511000 MAIL ADDRESS: STREET 1: PO BOX 524 CITY: MINEAPOLIS STATE: MN ZIP: 55440-0524 FORMER COMPANY: FORMER CONFORMED NAME: MINNEAPOLIS HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO DATE OF NAME CHANGE: 19670213 8-K 1 FORM 8-K SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): July 24, 1996 Honeywell Inc. ----------------------------------------------------- (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 1-971 41-0415010 ---------------- ---------------- -------------------- (State or other (Commission (IRS Employer jurisdiction of File Number) Identification No.) incorporation) Honeywell Plaza Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408 --------------------------------------- (Address of principal executive offices) Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (612) 951-1000 Not Applicable ------------------------------------------------------------ (Former name or former address, if changed since last report) Item 5. Other Events. ------------ As previously reported in its Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the registrant is a party to material litigation involving Litton Systems, Inc. The jury trial for the antitrust case began November 20, 1995 before Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer of the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. After the parties presented their evidence, the court dismissed for failure of proof, Litton's contentionscontentions that Honeywell engaged in below-cost predatory pricing; illegal tying and bundling; and illegally acquired Sperry Avionics in 1986. On February 2, 1996, the case was submitted to the jury on, leaving only two claims, one for monopolization and attempt to monopolize, both based on Litton's allegations that Honeywell entered into certain exclusive dealings and penalty arrangements with aircraft manufacturers and airlines, and one for attempted monopolization, based on Litton's allegations that Honeywell attempted to exclude Litton from the commercial aircraft market, and that Honeywell failed to provide Litton with ASCB interface information. On February 29, 1996, the jury returned a $234 million verdict against Honeywell for the monopolization claim. On March 1, 1996, the jury indicated that it was unable to reach a a verdict on damages for the attempted monopolization claim, and a mistrial was declared on that claimwith respect to that aspect of the antitrust case attached hereto as exhibits. Following the verdict, Honeywell filedd a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and a Motion for a New Trial with the trial court, contending that the jury's partial verdict should be overturnedis without merit, in part, because (i) Litton (i)'s claims of attempted monopolization and monopolization are integrally tied, and (ii) the damage finding is not supportable. Further, notwithstanding the jury's verdict, failed to prove essential elements of liability and (ii) failed to submit competent evidence to support its claim for damages by offering only a speculative, all-or-nothing $298.5 million damage study. Litton filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief and a Motion for Entry of Judgment. On July 24, 1996, Judge Pfaelzer issued an Order denying Honeywell's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Litton's Motion for Injunctive Relief and Litton's Motion for Entry of Judgment. The court concluded however, that the aggregated damage study Litton presented to the jury was seriously flawed and granted Honeywell's Motion for a New Trial as to the issue of damages only. No date has been set for the new trial. Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits. --------------------------------- (c) Exhibits Exhibit No. Exhibit - ---------- ------- 99(i) Press Release dated as of July 24, 1996. SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized. HONEYWELL INC. By: /s/ Edward D. Grayson ------------------------------ Edward D. Grayson Vice President and General Counsel Date: July 31, 1996 INDEX TO EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Exhibit - ---------- ------- 99(i) Press Release dated July 24, 1996. EX-99 2 EXHIBIT 99(I) EXHIBIT 99(i) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE From: Deb Hagen Honeywell Inc. COURT ORDERS NEW TRIAL FOR DAMAGES IN LITTON ANTITRUST TRIAL LOS ANGELES, JULY 24, 1996 _ Honeywell Inc. said it was pleased with the U.S. District Court's decision ordering a new trial on damages in the Litton Systems Inc. antitrust case. In calling for a new trial on damages, the Court vacates a Feb. 29 jury verdict against Honeywell of $234 million. `This is a victory for Honeywell,' said Edward D. Grayson, Honeywell vice president and general counsel. In ordering a new trial on damages, the Court concluded that Litton's damage study was `seriously flawed,' and that `the jury's verdict was based on speculation.' At the same time, Honeywell said it was disappointed that the court declined to overturn the jury's finding against Honeywell on liability. Prior to this ruling, the Court had dismissed for failure of proof Litton's claims that Honeywell had engaged in below-cost predatory pricing, illegal tying and bundling, and had illegally acquired Sperry Avionics in 1986. On Feb. 29, the jury had returned a $234 million verdict against Honeywell for the monopolization claim but failed to reach a verdict on the attempted monopolization claim. If the $234 million damage award had withstood the post- trial motion, the amount would have been trebled. In the 1960s Honeywell pioneered the application of ring laser gyroscopes to inertial navigation systems used for aircraft, and has become a worldwide leader in the manufacture and sale of such systems for commercial and military aircraft and vehicles of all types. Honeywell is a global controls company focused on creating value through control technology that enhances comfort, improves productivity, saves energy, protects the environment and increases safety. The company serves customers worldwide in the homes and buildings, industrial, and aviation and space markets. Honeywell employs 53,000 people in 95 countries and had 1995 sales of $6.7 billion. -----END PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----