A federal appeals court in San Francisco yesterday reinstated a string of racketeering suits that charge chemical giant DuPont with hiding evidence about a widely used fungicide so it could settle crop-loss cases on the cheap.

The ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was a victory for six nursery operators in Hawai'i, and a setback for E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., which has paid $1.9 billion in damages and legal costs over the past 15 years in cases involving the chemical, known as Benlate.

In an unusual rebuke, the three-judge panel also ordered the six cases reassigned from Manuel L. Real, a controversial federal district judge in Los Angeles, who, as a visiting judge in Hawai'i, had dismissed the suits.

"Although we do not question the impartiality of the visiting district judge, there are some unusual factors that indicate to us that a reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice," the panel said in its unanimous ruling.

DuPont said in a statement that it had not decided whether to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs attorney Stephen Cox of San Francisco said the decision means "that at long last, my clients are going to be able to present their case to a jury, and let a jury determine whether or not DuPont's fraudulent withholding of evidence was a significant factor in the settlements that were achieved."

The plaintiffs, who grow orchids and other ornamental plants, were among hundreds of commercial growers who sued DuPont during the 1990s over crop damage. They accused the company of allowing Benlate, which is used to attack plant diseases, to become contaminated by sulfonylureas, a powerful herbicide. The six nurserymen settled their claims for about $10 million in April 1994.

Soon after, it emerged in other cases that DuPont had "concealed, withheld and lied about" test data confirming the Benlate contamination problem, the appeals court ruling said.

This led to hefty fines for discovery abuse in other lawsuits, including a $1.5 million penalty in one case and $11.25 million in sanctions against DuPont and one of its law firms in another.

The Hawai'i plaintiffs sued DuPont under state laws and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, claiming the company and its lawyers, by hiding evidence, had fraudulently induced them to settle for less.

A federal judge in Hawai'i dismissed their claims on grounds that the settlement agreement was binding, but the 9th Circuit reversed the decision and sent the cases back to the trial court.

The second time in district court, Real got the case and dismissed it. Yesterday's ruling cited a litany of errors by the judge, including his conclusion that certain claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

Real could not be reached for comment late yesterday.

In its most recent quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, DuPont said 73 Benlate cases were pending as of Sept. 30. Citing liability concerns, the company took Benlate off the market in 2001.