Legal proceedings

We are not involved in any legal or arbitration proceedings which might lead to material loss or expenditure in the context of the Group results. Similarly we do not have any material obligations under environmental legislation. None of our Directors or Officers is involved in any legal proceedings which are material as aforesaid. Nonetheless, we comment on certain proceedings below:

Ice cream cases

Unilever has businesses in many countries and from time to time these are subject to investigation by competition and other regulatory authorities. One such matter under review is our ice cream distribution in Europe, specifically the exclusivity for the use of freezer cabinets provided to retailers free-on-loan for the sale of impulse ice cream. In September 2006 the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ('ECJ') dismissed the appeal by Unilever's Irish ice cream business, HB Ice Cream, of the 2003 Court of First Instance ('CFI') judgment that upheld the European Commission's 1998 decision to ban HB Ice Cream from imposing cabinet exclusivity in Ireland in circumstances where these were the only cabinets used by the retailer. The ECJ ruling is final as regards Ireland and ends 14 years of legal debate.

Unilever has been fully compliant with the ruling in the Irish case since October 2003, when we lifted cabinet exclusivity from outlets that only have HB freezers (Unilever was not ordered to abandon cabinet exclusivity altogether). Parallel proceedings between HB Ice Cream and Masterfoods (re-named Mars) before the Irish High Court, which had been deferred pending the ECJ ruling, were reopened in 2007 at the request of Mars to claim damages from Unilever. We will resist any claim for compensation for losses that cannot be directly attributed to the practices prohibited by the European Commission's 1998 decision as regards Ireland.

The Commission decision applied only to Ireland. The relevance of its reasoning to other markets depends on a detailed factual assessment of the effects of cabinet exclusivity in each market. Unilever has given careful consideration to the potential application of the reasoning in the Irish case to its cabinet policies in other EU countries. The majority of markets are not affected by this development. However we have taken a number of commercial steps to avoid extending the debate further, in the interest of focusing on our day-to-day business.

Since the ECJ ruling, Mars has nonetheless sought to bring claims against Unilever before authorities and courts in a number of countries. Mars' allegations must be scrutinised in the light of prevailing national market conditions, this can be a complex and lengthy process. However by 26 October 2007 a civil claim by Mars in Germany had already been dismissed by the Hamburg Regional Court. Although Mars has appealed this decision, we will continue vigorously to resist Mars' claim.

Mars also brought a claim before the Swedish Market Court, which on 25 September 2007 issued an interim order that broadly reflects Unilever's current policy as regards the loan of freezer cabinets, namely that retail customers in Sweden must be free to decide what products to store in Unilever cabinets where these are the only cabinets used by the retailer. The Court's order did not require material changes beyond those already made by Unilever's Swedish business, GB Glace. The main proceedings remain ongoing but the Market Court does not have jurisdiction to make damages awards.

An investigation by the Portuguese competition authority is ongoing since March 2007. Portuguese law prevents us from disclosing details of this investigation. Unilever engages proactively with the authority.

In Italy the Consiglio di Stato overturned a 2003 decision by the Italian competition authority ('ICA') that responded positively to a notification by Unilever of its policy in relation to outlet exclusivity. The Consiglio di Stato made its decision on 24 July 2007 on the basis that Unilever's market position in Italy had not been sufficiently investigated by the ICA. Unilever has always engaged proactively with the ICA and continues to do so to secure a prompt resolution to the outstanding issues.

We cannot exclude that Mars may seek to bring claims in other jurisdictions, in which case Unilever can be expected to defend its position vigorously. We believe that our true strength lies in the appeal and quality of our ice cream brands. By way of illustration of the point, in the UK since 2000, when cabinet exclusivity was effectively abandoned by Unilever, there has not been any material change in Unilever's relevant market share.

Other competition issues

In 2006 the French competition authorities commenced an inquiry into potential competition law infringements in France involving a number of consumer goods companies in the home and personal care sector, including Unilever France and Lever Fabergé France, both subsidiaries of the Unilever Group. Interviews have been conducted with present and former members of our staff and documents have been supplied to the French authorities. No statement of objections or proposals for fines have yet been lodged against either Unilever France or Lever Fabergé France as the authorities' investigation has had to be restarted following procedural challenge. Accordingly, the potential financial implications, if any, of this investigation cannot yet be assessed. A statement of objections is however expected in the near future.

On 14 March 2007 representatives from the German Federal Cartel Office carried out an inspection at the offices of Unilever Deutschland GmbH in Hamburg. The inspection was in relation to the home and personal care market in Germany. Statements of objections have been received by and fines have been imposed on Unilever Deutschland, which currently intends to defend its position by way of appeal.

On 25 February 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States of America in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging, relying upon the German investigation described above, that Unilever N.V., Unilever PLC and Unilever United States, Inc. allegedly conspired with certain other companies to fix prices of oral, home and personal care products in the United States. The Unilever parties deny the claims and intend to defend the action.

Tax cases Brazil

During 2004 the Federal Supreme Court in Brazil (local acronym STF) announced a review of certain cases that it had previously decided in favour of taxpayers. Because of this action we established a provision in 2004 for the potential repayment of sales tax credits in the event that the cases establishing precedents in our favour are reversed. Since that time we have continued to monitor the situation and have made changes as appropriate to the amount provided.

In June 2007, the Supreme Court ruled against the taxpayers in one of these cases. Management believes that the amount provided in Unilever's accounts should be sufficient to cover the amount of the tax in question, but industry associations (of which Unilever is a member) are currently attempting to negotiate a settlement with the Federal Revenue Service to reduce or avoid the payment of interest and/or penalties on such amounts. Management is optimistic that such negotiations will lead to a settlement, but no assurance can be given that a settlement will be reached or that the amount of any interest or penalties will be covered by such provision.

Also during 2004 in Brazil, and in common with many other businesses operating in that country, one of our Brazilian subsidiaries received a notice of infringement from the Federal Revenue Service. The notice alleges that a 2001 reorganisation of our local corporate structure was undertaken without valid business purpose. If upheld, the notice could result in a tax claim in respect of prior years. The 2001 reorganisation was comparable with that used by many companies in Brazil and we believe that the likelihood of a successful challenge by the tax authorities is remote. While this view is supported by the opinion of outside counsel there can be no guarantee of success on the merits.

Preference shares

In 1999, NV issued cumulative preference shares, with a notional value of €6.58 (Fl.14.50), as an alternative to a cash dividend. On 24 March 2004, NV announced its intention to convert part (€6.53 – equivalent to Fl.14.40) of the notional value of the preference shares, in accordance with its Articles of Association, into NV ordinary shares in the first quarter of 2005. This conversion took place in February 2005 for a value of €4.55 for each preference share. In May 2005, NV's Annual General Meeting decided to cancel the preference shares and cancellation took effect in July 2005.

In November 2006 NV announced that it had agreed a settlement with the main parties in a legal dispute over the conversion of the preference shares. Former preference shareholders who held preference shares on 24 March 2004 were entitled to participate in the settlement. These shareholders could apply for the settlement from 20 January 2007 up to and including 30 June 2007. Unilever has paid €304 million in respect of the settlement (further information in note 19).

A group of former preference shareholders who had bought their preference shares after 24 March 2004 and who are not entitled to the settlement, instituted claims with the Rotterdam District Court for nullification of the NV Board's decision to convert the preference shares and NV's Annual General Meeting decision to cancel the preference shares. The Rotterdam District Court has not yet decided on these claims. They also claim damages in the amount of approximately €81 million. These claims will be vigorously contested.