Huntingdon and backer Stephens sue activists:
Anti-research
campaign has far-reaching consequences for laboratories, world-wide pharmaceutical
industry
By Norma Bennett Woolf
Animal rights activists have taken their terrorist campaign against biomedical
research to new heights with a multi-faceted scheme to drive Huntingdon Life
Sciences out of business and send a message to other companies that use animals
to develop and study new drugs and medical protocols – and Huntingdon has
responded with a lawsuit that charges groups and individuals with conspiracy
under the US Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act.
hile bullying tactics aimed directly at the company continue at an accelerated
pace, extremists have opened a new front in the battle by terrorizing the banks,
brokerages, and individuals that hold Huntingdon stock. Many of these companies
have capitulated in the face of threats to employees and customers. However,
even though Huntingdon’s British managing director was beaten by masked
thugs in February and the company almost went belly-up last year, company officials
and new investor Stephens Group of Little Rock, Arkansas, are unbowed.
Stephens filed the original lawsuit; Huntingdon joined in an amended complaint
on April 19.
“Many of our stakeholders have been subject to appalling threats and intimidation
from these extremists and firm action now needs to be taken,” said Brian
Cass, Huntingdon’s managing director, when the amended complaint was filed.
“The defendants are involved in a campaign not just aimed at Huntingdon
but at all scientific animal research. However, we are the primary target today
and we intend to show that we shall not merely cave in to their onslaught. For
the benefit of all of us, this campaign of violence and intimidation of individuals,
often at their homes, must be stopped. We and our clients and fellow researchers
everywhere must be allowed to go about our crucial, and lawful endeavors free
from fear.”
Defendants in the lawsuit include Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Voices for
Animals, Animal Defense League, In Defense of Animals. The suit requests injunctive
relief to stop the defendants and those acting in concert with them from engaging
in acts and threats of force, violence and intimidation directed at the company,
Stephens, and their respective employees, customers, shareholders and investors.
The suit also seeks an award of monetary damages for losses incurred as a result
of the defendants’ unlawful conduct. Huntingdon lost $7.5 million in 2000
and saw its stock price plummet more than 40 percent as the attacks gained momentum
and investors bailed out to avoid being harassed by activists.
Background
Animal rights activists accused Huntingdon of cruelty to animals in its laboratory
practices in both the US and Britain in the mid-1990s. In the US, an operative
from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals infiltrated the company’s
New Jersey laboratory. Over an eight-month period, she surreptitiously video-taped
scientists and animal handlers at work and stole proprietary research documents.
PeTA edited the video tape and released a short segment to the news media and
to companies that hired Huntingdon to conduct research projects.
At about the same time, Huntingdon was investigated by the US Department of
Agriculture, and in April 1998, the agency and Huntingdon settled on a civil
penalty of $50,000 in an agreement 1 that did not
require the company to admit or deny the alleged violations. Twenty thousand
dollars of the settlement went to the development of alternatives to animal
testing, an additional $20,000 was allocated to construction of group housing
for primates, and the remaining $10,000 went to the US Treasury. The agreement
also required the company to hire a USDA-approved consultant to review research
records and protocols and submit a report to the agency.
The campaign
When PeTA and Huntingdon settled their case out of court, the animal rights
group agreed to leave the company alone. Action then switched to England, where
SHAC went on the offensive against banks that loaned Huntingdon money. One by
one, the group pressured backers with threats, occupations, and accusations
of supporting cruelty, and Huntingdon saw its support dwindle and its stock
decline.
The Associated Press 2 reported that Charles Schwab
brokerage dropped its Huntingdon stock because “An increasing number of
employees was being ‘personally threatened, harassed, and intimidated by
protesters,’ said Bob Duste, chief executive of Charles Schwab Europe.
‘It is now impossible to trade the stock through normal channels,’
Duste said.”
Winterflood Securities also felt the sting of terrorism for trading shares
in Huntingdon.
ABC News 3 reported on April 4, 2001, that “After
the family members of many of the firm’s officers received threatening
phone calls, and one came home one Sunday to find a crowd of protesters ‘in
balaclavas and death masks’ waiting for him and his two young children,
Winterflood capitulated and dropped the lab’s stocks.”
Countermeasures
The British government approved an additional £1 million to help Cambridgeshire
police pay the costs of policing the protests at Huntingdon Life Sciences 4,
and Huntingdon has asked the British government to consider a bill similar to
the US Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act for prosecution of terrorists
who target a company for destruction 5.
The London Treasury and the Financial Services Authority is considering a plan
to shield stockbrokers that trade shares of Huntingdon Life Sciences 6,
a British research charities group has severed ties with one of the banks that
dropped Huntingdon because of protests 7, and Japanese
drug firms may consider withdrawal of $1 billion in Britain’s research
industry 8.
Pharmaceutical manufacturer Roche 9, a company that contracts
with Huntingdon, sued activists in British Court after several of its employees
were named on an animal rights website, staff members received death threats,
and one employee was assaulted. Roche asked the court to enjoin the activists
from publishing employee names and addresses on a website, pay £50,000
in legal fees, and compensate the company for copyright infringement for publishing
plans of the company’s buildings on the Internet.
Huntingdon remains a target in US
While the lawsuit is pending, the company remains a target of demonstrations,
animal theft, and harassment of investors. More than a dozen beagles were stolen
from Huntingdon’s New Jersey laboratory on April 1, and three demonstrators
were arrested in a demonstration outside the New Jersey laboratory on April
2. Activists disrupted business at Boston, Atlanta, San Francisco, New York,
and Chicago offices of Stephens Incorporated on April 26-27, and the names and
contact information for individual stock holders are featured on the website
of the Frontline Information Service with a plea for letters to demand that
they sever contact with the company.
Notes
- The federal Animal Welfare Act sets standards for animal
care and requires detailed reports for research protocols involving animals.
All violations of the act do not involve or prove cruelty; many cases involve
only paperwork violations or failure to abide by such requirements as group
housing and enrichment for primates. USDA has the authority to suspend or
revoke licenses for non-compliance with AWA regulations, but if the alleged
violations are fixable and the licensee agrees to make changes, the agency
is willing to cooperate to bring them into compliance.
- “Lab’s stock is under pressure; animal rights
lobby chalks up success” – Chris Fontaine, The Associated Press;
The Record (Bergen County, NJ), April 12, 2001
- “Animal rights groups wage war on banks” –
By Dean Schabner, ABCNEWS.com, April 4, 2001
- “More money to protect Huntingdon against attack”
– Press Association Newsfile, London, April 26, 2001
- “Huntingdon Life Sciences urges new law to ban extremists”
– Sunday Business, London, April 29, 2001
- “Huntingdon brokers ‘to be shielded’”
– Daily Telegraph, London, April 23, 2001
- “HSBC loses charities customer: Bank’s refusal
to take tough line against animal rights activists blamed” by David Firn
and Francesco Guerrera – Financial Times (London), April 23, 2001
- “Japan threatens to halt pounds 1bn for drugs; Animal
activists could prevent major investment” by Andrew Clark – The
Guardian, London, April 5, 2001
- “Roche seeks legal ban on animal rights website”
by Rajeev Syal – Sunday Telegraph, London, April 8, 2001
For more on undercover activities by animal rights activists, see Veterinarian
wins appeal; PeTA charges thrown out
|
