Travelers 2005 Annual Report Download - page 72

60
consolidated with other class actions under the caption In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, a
multidistrict litigation proceeding in that District. On August 1, 2005, nineteen plaintiffs, including the four
named plaintiffs in the above-referenced class actions, filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint naming various brokers and insurers, including the Company and certain of its affiliates, on
behalf of a putative nationwide class of policyholders. The complaint includes causes of action under the
Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state common law and the laws of
the various states prohibiting antitrust violations. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive
damages and trebled damages, permanent injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement of profits,
interest and costs, including attorneys’ fees. On November 29, 2005, all defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim. On February 13, 2006, the named plaintiffs moved to certify a
nationwide class consistingof all persons who between August 26, 1994 and the date of class certification
engaged the services of a broker defendant (or related entity) in connection with the procurement or
renewal of insurance and who entered into or renewed a contract of insurance with one or more of the
insurer defendants, including the Company. One individual action naming variousbrokers and insurers,
including several of the Company’s affiliates, was filed in federal district court and is captioned Delta Pride
Catfish, Inc. v. Marsh USA, Inc., et al. (D. Miss. Sept. 13, 2005). That action has also been transferred to the
District of New Jersey and is being coordinated with In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation. On
January 17, 2006, all defendants moved to dismiss the complaint inDelta Pride Catfish, Inc. for failure to
state a claim. One other putative class action, Bensley Construction, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., et al. (Mass. Super. Ct. May 16, 2005), and one other individual action, Office
Depot, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al. (Fla. Cir. Ct. June22, 2005), have been filed in
state court and assert claims that are similar to those asserted in In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation against various brokers and insurers, including the Company and/or certain of its affiliates, but
have not been consolidated with In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation. Certain defendants in
Bensley Construction, Inc., including the Company, have removed the action to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. On February 13, 2006, the action was transferred to the District of
New Jersey for coordination with In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation. Office Depot, Inc. was
brought in Florida state court and names several of the Company’s subsidiaries. On November 9, 2005, the
court entered an order staying Office Depot pending resolution of In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation. The plaintiff in Office Depot, Inc. has appealed. The Company believes that these lawsuits have
no merit and intends to defend vigorously.
In addition to those described above, the Company is involved in numerous lawsuits, not involving
asbestos and environmental claims, arising mostly in the ordinary course of business operations either as a
liability insurer defending third-party claims brought against policyholders, or as an insurer defending
claims brought against it relating to coverage or the Company’s business practices. While the ultimate
resolution of these legal proceedings could be material to the Company’s results of operations in a future
period, in the opinion of the Company’s management none would likely have a material adverse effect on
the Company’s financial condition or liquidity.
Item 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
NONE.
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
Information about the Company’s executive officers is incorporated by reference from Part III,
Item 10 of this Report.