Yes, Coatec was the company. I do not have any information about who might of made the chrome rollers (I know who did not make them). The problem with the chrome rollers in question (I consulted at the time with one of the defendants in the lawsuit) was they were chrome plated directly on steel without the usual copper and nickel layers underneath. This allowed electrolysis (the flow of the fountain solution over the roller forming a galvanic battery due to the electrolyte (conductive) nature of the acids, bases and salts used in fountain solution formulations) to corrode the steel right through the porous chrome layer. This would happen regardless of the chemistry used, as long as it conducted electricity. Due to the porosity of the ceramic coating, the early Coatec rollers suffered the same problems. The press manufacturers tried (unsuccessfully) to establish that the fountain solutions were too acidic or inadequately inhibited to protect the rollers, but the court ruled that rollers sold as part of a dampening system should be able to withstand ordinary and expected exposure to materials necessary to facilitate the process for which the press was intended. The Munich Technical Institute was involved providing testimony supporting the press manufacturers and this lead to what eventually became FOGRA, testing and 'qualifying' washes and fountain solutions.
