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.
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.
