Alcoa 2010 Annual Report Download - page 41

law, and common law. The plaintiff has not specified in the complaint the amount it seeks in damages. The defendants
filed motions to dismiss in 2005. In October 2007, in an effort to resolve the liability of SCRG in the lawsuit, as well as
any other CERCLA liability SCRG may have with respect to the facility, DPNR filed a new lawsuit against SCRG
seeking the recovery of response costs under CERCLA, and the plaintiff and SCRG filed a joint Agreement and
Consent Decree. The remaining defendants each filed objections to the Agreement and Consent Decree, and in
October 2008, the court denied entry of the Agreement and Consent Decree. The court also ruled on the motions to
dismiss that were filed by all defendants in 2005. The court dismissed two counts from the complaint (common law
trespass and V.I. Water Pollution Control Act), but denied the motions with regard to the other six counts (CERCLA,
V.I. Oil Spill Prevention and Pollution Control Act, and common law strict liability, negligence, negligence per se and
nuisance). The court also ruled that the Virgin Islands Government was the proper plaintiff for the territorial law claims
and required re-filing of the complaint by the proper parties, which was done in November 2008. The plaintiffs
subsequently moved to amend their complaint further, were granted leave by the court to do so, and filed an amended
complaint on July 30, 2009. AWA and SCA filed an answer, counterclaim and cross-claim against SCRG in response
to the amended complaint in August 2009. In response to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the other former owners of
the alumina refinery filed answers, counterclaims, and cross-claims against SCRG and certain agencies of the Virgin
Islands Government. During July 2009, each defendant except SCRG filed a partial motion for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of the CERCLA cause of action on statute of limitations grounds. In July 2010, the court granted in
part and denied in part each defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court granted each defendant’s motion as
to alleged injury to off-site groundwater and downstream surface water resources but denied each motion as to alleged
injury to on-site groundwater resources. At this stage of the proceeding, the company is unable to reasonably predict an
outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.
As previously reported, in December 2006, SCA was sued by the Commissioner of DPNR, U.S. Virgin Islands, in the
Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix. The plaintiff alleges violations of the Coastal Zone
Management Act and a construction permit issued thereunder. The complaint seeks a civil fine of $10,000 under the
Coastal Zone Management Act, civil penalties of $10,000 per day for alleged intentional and knowing violations of the
Coastal Zone Management Act, exemplary damages, costs, interest and attorney’s fees, and “other such amounts as
may be just and proper.” SCA responded to the complaint on February 2, 2007 by filing an answer and motion to
disqualify DPNR’s private attorney. The parties fully briefed the motion and are awaiting a decision from the court. At
this stage of the proceeding, the company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss.
As previously reported, in December 2006, SCA, along with unaffiliated prior and subsequent owners, were sued by
the Commissioner of the DPNR, U.S. Virgin Islands, in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix.
This second suit alleges violations by the defendants of certain permits and environmental statutes said to apply to the
facility. The complaint seeks the completion of certain actions regarding the facility, a civil fine from each defendant of
$10,000 under the Coastal Zone Management Act, civil penalties of $50,000 per day for each alleged violation of the
Water Pollution Control Act, $10,000 per day for alleged intentional and knowing violations of the Coastal Zone
Management Act, exemplary damages, costs, interest and attorney’s fees, and “other such amounts as may be just and
proper.” SCA responded to the complaint on February 2, 2007 by filing an answer and motion to disqualify DPNR’s
private attorney. The parties fully briefed the motion and are awaiting a decision from the court. In October 2007,
plaintiff and defendant SCRG entered into a settlement agreement resolving claims against SCRG. Plaintiff filed a
notice of dismissal with the court, and the court entered an order dismissing SCRG on November 2, 2007. SCA
objected to the dismissal and requested that the court withdraw its order, and the parties have briefed SCA’s objection
and request. A decision from the court is pending. On November 10, 2007, SCA filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of all claims in the case. The parties completed briefing of the motion in January 2008. A decision
from the court is pending. At this stage of the proceeding, the company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or
to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.
As previously reported, and noted above, in October 2007, DPNR filed a CERCLA cost recovery suit against SCRG.
After the court denied entry of the Agreement and Consent Decree in October 2008, the cost recovery case lay dormant
until May 2009, when SCRG filed a third-party complaint for contribution and other relief against several third-party
33