Energy Transfer 2012 Annual Report Download - page 189

F - 44
Future minimum lease commitments for such leases are:
Years Ending December 31:
2013 $ 90
2014 80
2015 77
2016 63
2017 52
Thereafter 460
Future minimum lease commitments 822
Less: Sublease rental income (64)
Net future minimum lease commitments $ 758
Amounts reflected above do not include future minimum lease commitments for the Southern Union distribution operations,
which were reclassified and reported as assets and liabilities held for sale at December 31, 2012 as described in Note 3.
Our joint venture agreements require that we fund our proportionate share of capital contributions to our unconsolidated
affiliates. Such contributions will depend upon our unconsolidated affiliates’ capital requirements, such as for funding capital
projects or repayment of long-term obligations.
Litigation and Contingencies
We may, from time to time, be involved in litigation and claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business.
Natural gas and crude are flammable and combustible. Serious personal injury and significant property damage can arise in
connection with their transportation, storage or use. In the ordinary course of business, we are sometimes threatened with or
named as a defendant in various lawsuits seeking actual and punitive damages for product liability, personal injury and property
damage. We maintain liability insurance with insurers in amounts and with coverage and deductibles management believes
are reasonable and prudent, and which are generally accepted in the industry. However, there can be no assurance that the
levels of insurance protection currently in effect will continue to be available at reasonable prices or that such levels will
remain adequate to protect us from material expenses related to product liability, personal injury or property damage in the
future.
Sunoco Litigation
Following the announcement of the Sunoco Merger on April 30, 2012, eight putative class action and derivative complaints
were filed in connection with the Sunoco Merger in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Each
complaint names as defendants the members of Sunoco's board of directors and alleges that they breached their fiduciary
duties by negotiating and executing, through an unfair and conflicted process, a merger agreement that provides inadequate
consideration and that contains impermissible terms designed to deter alternative bids. Each complaint also names as defendants
Sunoco, ETP, ETP GP, ETP LLC, and Sam Acquisition Corporation, alleging that they aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary
duties by Sunoco's directors; some of the complaints also name ETE as a defendant on those aiding and abetting claims. In
September 2012, all of these lawsuits were settled with no payment obligation on the part of any of the defendants following
the filing of Current Reports on Form 8-K that included additional disclosures that were incorporated by reference into the
proxy statement related to the Sunoco Merger. Subsequent to the settlement of these cases, the plaintiffs' attorneys sought
compensation from Sunoco for attorneys' fees related to their efforts in obtaining these additional disclosures. In January
2013, Sunoco entered into agreements to compensate the plaintiffs' attorneys in the state court actions in the aggregate amount
of not more than $950,000 and to compensate the plaintiffs' attorneys in the federal court action in the amount of not more
than $250,000. The payment of $950,000 is pending approval by the state court.
Litigation Relating to the Southern Union Merger
In June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas naming
as defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and ETE. The lawsuits were styled
Jaroslawicz v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County,
Texas and Magda v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37134, in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas. The lawsuits were consolidated into an action styled In re: Southern Union Company; Cause No. 2011-37091,
in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that the Southern Union directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the Merger and that Southern Union and ETE aided and
Table of Contents