LignoTech South Africa is an equal partnership joint venture between Sappi Southern Africa Limited and Borregaard AS of Norway. The lignin extraction plant in Umkomaas, KwaZulu Natal was first commissioned in December 1998 and officially opened in 1999. The plant at LignoTech was designed to generate revenue from a previously-unused component of the effluent stream from Sappi’s Saiccor mill. These are used as binding and dispersing agents in a wide range of agricultural and industrial applications. Gary Bowles, Group Head Technology of Sappi Limited commented on the anniversary: “LignoTech has been a tremendous success. Sappi and Borregaard showed faith and commitment 20 years ago and have created a synergistic integration of local competencies, infrastructure and raw material with internationally-proven technology and global reach. This innovative venture continues to benefit all stakeholders. LignoTech is an example of Sappi’s commitment to work with partners to develop solutions, in particular in the exciting fields of biochemicals and biomaterials.” Click Read More below for additional detail.
The Helsinki District Court has today rendered a judgement whereby it has dismissed the damages claim of Metsähallitus against UPM, Stora Enso Corporation and Metsäliitto Cooperative, which was based on the competition restriction concerning the raw wood market found by the Marker Court decision of 3 December 2009.
The District Court ordered Metsähallitus to pay UPM compensation for legal expenses.
According to Metsähallitus’ claim, the forestry companies had caused damage to Metsähallitus on the basis of the competition restriction found by the Market Court decision of 3 December 2009. Metsähallitus claimed that due to the competition restriction the forestry companies had paid underprice to Metsähallitus in raw wood sales contracts. The capital amount of Metsähallitus’ claim was in total approximately EUR 159.4 million, of which approximately EUR 22.6 million was based on agreements between Metsähallitus and UPM.
UPM agrees with the District Court ruling. UPM maintains that it has not caused the alleged damage to Metsähallitus. Metsähallitus may appeal the District Court judgment to the Court of Appeal.