Alcoa 2012 Annual Report Download - page 50

GLOBAL ROLLED PRODUCTS
See the table and related text in the Global Rolled Products Facilities section on page 17 of this report.
ENGINEERED PRODUCTS AND SOLUTIONS
See the table and related text in the Engineered Products and Solutions Facilities section on pages 18-19 of this
report.
CORPORATE
See the table and related text in the Corporate Facilities section on page 20 of this report.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In the ordinary course of its business, Alcoa is involved in a number of lawsuits and claims, both actual and potential.
Litigation
As previously reported, along with various asbestos manufacturers and distributors, Alcoa and its subsidiaries as
premises owners are defendants in several hundred active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons alleging injury
predominantly as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos at various Company facilities. In addition, an Alcoa
subsidiary company has been named, along with a large common group of industrial companies, in a pattern complaint
where the Company’s involvement is not evident. Since 1999, several thousand such complaints have been filed. To
date, the subsidiary has been dismissed from almost every case that was actually placed in line for trial. Alcoa, its
subsidiaries and acquired companies, all have had numerous insurance policies over the years that provide coverage for
asbestos based claims. Many of these policies provide layers of coverage for varying periods of time and for varying
locations. Alcoa has significant insurance coverage and believes that its reserves are adequate for its known asbestos
exposure related liabilities. The costs of defense and settlement have not been and are not expected to be material to the
results of operations, cash flows, and financial position of the Company.
As previously reported, in November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class
action was filed by plaintiffs representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or Reynolds Metals
Company and spouses and dependents of such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay
health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain medical procedures and
prescription drugs. Plaintiffs alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated their rights to vested health
care benefits. Plaintiffs additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by
misrepresenting to them that their health benefits would never change. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory
relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys’ fees. Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs’ claims as a class
action. During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the
plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs’
breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs’ jury demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set
a trial date of September 17, 2008. In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009 and, subsequently,
the trial date was moved to September 22, 2009. In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an advisory jury
at trial. Trial in the matter was held over eight days commencing September 22, 2009 and ending on October 1, 2009 in
federal court in Knoxville, TN before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge. At the conclusion of
evidence, the court set a post-hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law by the parties and for replies to the same. Post trial briefing was submitted on December 4, 2009.
On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing plaintiffs’ lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the
reasons stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for
clarification and/or amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other things, a declaration that plaintiffs’
39