ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

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 effect 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 United States Department of Justice ("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 appealed this decision. On July 9, 2003 the court reduced the fine assessed against the Company to EUR 43.9 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 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 June 9, 2000. On December 17, 2001, the Commis sion of the European Communities adopted a decision imposing a fine against the Company in the amount of EUR 39.7 million. The Company has appealed this decision. 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 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 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 has appealed 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 of the proceedings of the Commission of the European Communities and the ultimate outcome and materiality of the proceedings of the Brazilian Department of Protection and Economic Defense cannot presently be determined.

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. On June 18, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. On August 5, 2002, the Court of Appeals denied defendants' petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. On February 24, 2003, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari. On July 1, 2003, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to decertify the class. That motion is currently pending.

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, 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 October 25, 2002, the defendants moved for partial summary judgment with respect to the corn syrup claims asserted in this case. On May 13, 2003, the Court denied this motion. On June 24, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litig ation remanded the case back to federal court in Oregon.

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 conso lidated 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. Arche r 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.

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 clas s 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 fruct ose corn syrup and citric acid. This action 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. Plaintiffs are seeking to conduct additional discovery. 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. On August 20, 2003, plaintiff Lisa Heun filed a motion to substitute herself as plaintiff for Arthur Waugh. That motio n is currently pending. On October 9, 2003, Lisa Heun filed a motion to intervene in the action. That motion is currently being briefed.

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 oth er 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 ha s 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 twenty-three putative class action antitrust suits and one non-class action suit involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers in the United States and three putative class action antitrust suits involving the sale of nucleotides and monosodium glutamate 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 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 and monosodium glutamate 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 and costs of the actions. 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., Court File No. S015589. 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. On September 19, 2002, the plaintiffs in the Ontario class action served a motion seeking to amend the Statement of Claim to remove all allegations relating to the sale of nucleotides and to launch a separate class action in respect of the sale of nucleotides. On December 10, 2002, the plaintiffs withdrew this motion and advised that they no longer intend to sever the monosodium glutamate and nucleotides claims. The plaintiffs further advised on December 10, 2002 that they would be serving a further Amended Statement of Claim. The Amended Statement of Claim was served on September 3, 2003. On May 28, 2003, the Company and the plaintiffs in these three actions reached an agreement p ursuant to which the Company will pay the plaintiffs C$150,000, plus up to C$25,000 in costs related to providing notice of this settlement. The plaintiffs have also reached a settlement with all of the other defendants except Tung Hai Fermentation Industrial Corp. Tung Hai is a Taiwanese company that has never responded to the action and against whom the plaintiffs have initiated default proceedings. The plaintiffs and the settling defendants are in the process of finalizing the settlement documents. Hearings to approve the settlements have been scheduled for November 24, 2003 in Ontario, December 1, 2003 in British Columbia, and January 19, 2004 in Quebec. The settlement with the Company is conditional upon the Courts' approval of all of the settlements in each action.

STATE ACTIONS. 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-Mid land 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. The Company and the plaintiffs in these actions have executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay the plaintiffs $50,000. This settlement will be submitted for approval by the court in the near future. The Company, along with other defendants, also has been named as a defendant in one putative class action antitrust suit filed in Massachusetts state court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers. The action alleges violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix prices, allocate market shares and eliminate and suppress competition in the sale of monosodium glutamate, nucleotides and other food flavor enhancers, and seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in this action comprises persons within the State of Massachusetts that purchased for consumer purposes products containing monosodium glutamate and/or nucleotides between January 1990 and August 23, 2001. This action was filed on June 5, 2002 in Middlesex Superior Court, and is encaptioned Fortin v. Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 02-2345. The Company, along with other defendants, also has been nam ed as a defendant in one putative class action antitrust suit filed in Kansas state court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and nucleotides. This class action alleges violations of the Kansas antitrust statute and includes allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize, control and maintain the prices for monosodium glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks damages, including treble damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in this action comprises all persons or entities in Kansas that indirectly purchased monosodium glutamate or nucleotides, or products containing these ingredients for human and/or animal consumption, between January 1, 1983 and September 1999. This action was filed on September 9, 2003 in the Circuit Court for Johnson County, Kansas and is encaptioned Smith v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Case No. 03-CV-06474. The Company, along with other defendants, also has been named as a defendant in one non - -class action antitrust suit filed by six individual business entities in Kansas state court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and nucleotides. The action alleges violations of the Kansas state antitrust laws, including allegations that defendants agreed to raise, fix and maintain prices for monosodium glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks damages, including treble damages and the full consideration or sum paid for monosodium glutamate or nucleotides or products containing these ingredients, of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. This action was filed on October 8, 2002 in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas and is encaptioned Four B Corp., et al., v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 02-C-4271. On January 3, 2003, the Company along with other defendants removed this action to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. On February 12, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this ac tion to the District of Minnesota for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On April 3, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. On November 3, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and dismissed this case with prejudice. The Company, along with other defendants, also has been named as a defendant in one putative class action antitrust suit filed in Wisconsin state court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and nucleotides. The action alleges violations of the laws of the States of Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The action includes allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize, control and maintain the prices for monosodium glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks damages, including treble damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in this action comprises all persons or entities in the above-referenced jurisdictions who indirectly purchased monosodium glutamate or nucleotides, or products containing these ingredients for human and/or animal consumption, between January 1, 1989 and November 25, 2002. This action was filed on November 25, 2002 in the Circuit Court for Dane County, Wisconsin and is encaptioned Lief v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Case No. 02-CV-3697. On March 12, 2003, the Company and other defendants removed this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. On April 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand this case to state court. On May 6, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this action to the District of Minnesota for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The Company, along with other defendants, also has been named as a defendant in one putative class action antitrust suit filed in South Dako ta state court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and nucleotides. The action alleges violations of the South Dakota antitrust statute and includes allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize, control and maintain the prices for monosodium glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks damages, including treble damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in this action comprises all persons or entities in South Dakota who indirectly purchased monosodium glutamate or nucleotides, or products containing these ingredients for human and/or animal consumption, between January 1, 1983 and September 1999. This action was filed on September 3, 2003 in the Circuit Court for Pennington County, South Dakota and is encaptioned Berger v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Case No. 03-CV-964. The Company, along with other defendants, also has been named as a defendant in one putative class action antitrust suit filed in North Carolina state cou rt involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and nucleotides. The action alleges violations of the laws of the States of Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The action includes allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize, control and maintain the prices for monosodium glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks damages, including treble damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in this action comprises all persons or entities in the above referenced jurisdictions who indirectly purchased monosodium glutamate or nucleotides, or products containing these ingredients for human and/or animal consumption, between January 1, 1983 and September 1999. This action was filed on S eptember 3, 2003 in Mecklenburg County Superior Court and is encaptioned Thai Holdings of Charlotte, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Case No. 03-CVS-15906. The Company, along with other defendants, also has been named as a defendant in one putative class action antitrust suit filed in Michigan state court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and nucleotides. The action alleges violations of the Michigan antitrust statute, as well as a claim for civil conspiracy, and includes allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize, control and maintain the prices for monosodium glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks damages, including treble damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in this action comprises all persons or entities in Michigan who indirectly purchased monosodium glutamate or nucleotides, or products containing these ingredients for human and/or animal consumption, between January 1, 1983 and September 1999. T his action was filed on September 4, 2003 in the Circuit Court for Wayne County, Michigan and is encaptioned National Coney Island, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Case No. 03-329445. The Company, along with other defendants, also has been named as a defendant in one putative class action antitrust suit filed in Arizona state court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and nucleotides. The action alleges violations of the Arizona antitrust statute, as well as a claim for civil conspiracy, and includes allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize, control and maintain the prices for monosodium glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks damages, including treble damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in this action comprises all persons or entities in Arizona who indirectly purchased monosodium glutamate or nucleotides, or products containing these ingredients for human and/or animal consumption, between January 1, 1 983 and September 1999. This action was filed on September 8, 2003 in Maricopa County Superior Court and is encaptioned Auer v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Case No. CV-2003-017157. The Company, along with other defendants, also has been named as a defendant in one putative class action antitrust suit filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and nucleotides. The action alleges violations of the Arizona antitrust statute, as well as a claim for civil conspiracy, and includes allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize, control and maintain the prices for monosodium glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks damages, including treble damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in this action comprises all persons or entities in the District of Columbia who indirectly purchased monosodium glutamate or nucleotides, or products containing these ingredients for human and/or a nimal consumption, between January 1, 1983 and September 1999. This action was filed on September 9, 2003 in the District of Columbia Superior Court and is encaptioned Wondrack v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Case No. 03-CA-007542. The Company, along with other defendants, also has been named as a defendant in one putative class action antitrust suit filed in West Virginia state court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and nucleotides. This action alleges violation of the West Virginia Antitrust Act and includes allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices at artificially high and noncompetitive levels, and seeks damages, including treble damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative class in this action comprises all persons or entities present in West Virginia who indirectly purchased monosodium glutamate and/or nucleotides manufactured by any defendant from January 1983 to September 1999. T his action was filed on September 8, 2003 in the Circuit Court of Hancock County, West Virginia and is encaptioned Marie C. Dodson, et al v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No.: 03-C-168G.