Alcoa 2015 Annual Report Download - page 68

project on the region’s water system. In April 2011, the State of Pará defended itself in the case asserting that the
operating license contains the necessary plans to mitigate such impact, that the State monitors the performance of
AWAB’s obligations arising out of such license, that the licensing process is valid and legal, and that the suit is
meritless. The Company’s position is that any impact from the project had been fully repaired when the suit was filed.
The Company also believes that Jará Lake has not been affected by any project activity and any evidence of pollution
from the project would be unreliable. Following the preliminary injunction request, the plaintiffs took no further action
until October 2014, when in response to the court’s request and as required by statute, they restated the original
allegations in the lawsuit. The Company is not certain whether or when the action will proceed. Given that this
proceeding is in its preliminary stage and the current uncertainty in this case, the Company is unable to reasonably
predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.
As previously reported, by an amended complaint filed April 21, 2005, Alcoa Global Fasteners, Inc. was added as a
defendant in Orange County Water District (OCWD) v. Northrop Corporation, et al., civil action 04cc00715 (Superior
Court of California, County of Orange). OCWD alleges contamination or threatened contamination of a drinking water
aquifer by Alcoa, certain of the entities that preceded Alcoa at the same locations as property owners and/or operators,
and other current and former industrial and manufacturing businesses that operated in Orange County in past decades.
OCWD seeks to recover the cost of aquifer remediation and attorney’s fees. Trial on statutory, non-jury claims
commenced on February 10, 2012, and continued through September 2012 when the case was submitted to the court
for decision. On December 11, 2012, the court issued its tentative ruling in the matter dismissing plaintiff OCWD’s
remaining statutory claims against all defendants. The court’s tentative ruling also invited further briefing on the
decision and it is subject to modification. On January 21, 2013, defendants filed a joint brief responding to ten specific
questions posed by the court’s tentative ruling. The joint brief argued that the court should make further findings of fact
and law in favor of the defendants in response to the ten questions. Alcoa Global Fasteners, Inc. also filed a separate
brief on two of the questions arguing that the court should determine that it is neither a cause of ground water
contamination nor a cause of plaintiff’s incurred costs. Remaining in the case at this time are common law trespass and
nuisance claims for a Phase II trial which has not been scheduled. OCWD has asserted a total remedy cost of at least
$150 million plus attorneys’ fees; however, the amount in controversy at this stage is limited to sums already expended
by the OCWD, approximately $4 million. The court has indicated that it is not likely to grant the OCWD’s request for
declaratory relief as to future sums the OCWD expends. On February 28, 2013, the court held a hearing on its tentative
Statement of Decision finding that OCWD had not met its burden on the element of causation and, following that
hearing, on May 10, 2013, issued a supplemental tentative decision, finding that plaintiff had not met its burden of
proof. On that date, the court ordered defendants to submit a proposed statement of decision, followed by filing of
objections and counter-proposed statement of decision by the plaintiff and responses by the defendants. All filings were
completed by September 23, 2013 at which time the matter was submitted to the court for final decision. On
October 29, 2013, the court issued its final Statement of Decision (“SOD”) which resolved the statutory law liability
claims of the Phase I trial favorably to Alcoa and the other Phase I trial defendants. The plaintiff and the trial
defendants disagree on the consequences of the SOD and the Phase I trial on the remaining two tort claims of nuisance
and trespass. On December 19, 2013, the court held a Case Management Conference and approved the parties’
proposed briefing schedule regarding remaining issues. On June 20, 2014, following the full briefing by the parties, the
trial court entered final judgment in favor of Alcoa and the other trial defendants on the remaining tort claims. On
August 18, 2014, the OCWD filed a notice of appeal of the judgment with the Superior Court of the County of Orange.
On October 14, 2015, the OCWD submitted its opening brief. Defendants’ response brief is due March 14, 2016.
St. Croix Proceedings
Abednego and Abraham cases. As previously reported, on January 14, 2010, Alcoa was served with a multi-plaintiff
action complaint involving several thousand individual persons claiming to be residents of St. Croix who are alleged to
have suffered personal injury or property damage from Hurricane Georges or winds blowing material from the St.
Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (“SCA”) facility on the island of St. Croix (U.S. Virgin Islands) since the time of the hurricane.
This complaint, Abednego, et al. v. Alcoa, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Croix
Division. Following an unsuccessful attempt by Alcoa and SCA to remove the case to federal court, the case has been
lodged in the Superior Court. The complaint names as defendants the same entities that were sued in a February 1999
44