U-Haul 2004 Annual Report Download - page 92

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 92 of the 2004 U-Haul annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 125

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125

AMERCO AND CONSOLIDATED ENTITIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Ì (Continued)
purported AMERCO shareholder, commenced this action on January 28, 2003 on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or acquired AMERCO securities between February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002.
The Article Four Trust action alleges one claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Mates v. AMERCO, et al., United States District Court, District of Nevada,
Case No. CV-N-03-0107. Maxine Mates, an AMERCO shareholder, commenced this putative class action
on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired AMERCO securities between February 12,
1998 and September 26, 2002. The Mates action asserts claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and
section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Klug v. AMERCO, et al., United States District Court of
Nevada, Case No. CV-S-03-0380. Edward Klug, an AMERCO shareholder, commenced this putative class
action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired AMERCO securities between
February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002. The Klug action asserts claims under section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. IG Holdings v. AMERCO, et al.,
United States District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. CV-N-03-0199. IG Holdings, an AMERCO
bondholder, commenced this putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased,
acquired, or traded AMERCO bonds between February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002, alleging claims
under section 11 and section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and
section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Each of these four securities class actions allege that
AMERCO engaged in transactions with SAC entities that falsely improved AMERCO's Ñnancial statements,
and that AMERCO failed to disclose the transactions properly. The actions are at a very early stage. The Klug
action has not been served. In the other three actions, AMERCO does not currently have a deadline by which
it must respond to the complaints. Management has stated that it intends to defend these cases vigorously.
Department of Labor
On May 18, 2004, the United States Department of Labor (""DOL'') completed its investigating of the
AMERCO Employee Savings, ProÑt Sharing, and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the ""Plan''), its
Ñduciaries, and other third parties. The Company has remedied or resolved all issues raised by the DOL in the
investigation.
Securities and Exchange Commission
The Securities and Exchange Commission (""SEC'') has issued a formal order of investigation to
determine whether the Company has violated the Federal securities laws. On January 7, 2003, the Company
received the Ñrst of several subpoenas issued by the SEC to the company. SAC Holdings, the Company's
current and former auditors, and others have also received one or more subpoenas relating to this matter. The
Company is cooperating with the SEC and is facilitating the expeditious review of its Ñnancial statements and
any other issues that may arise.
The Company has produced well in excess of one million documents to the SEC and continues to respond
to requests for additional documents. Notwithstanding the Company's ongoing document production, on
March 5, 2004, the SEC commenced an action against the Company in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada seeking an order compelling the Company to comply with the SEC's document
requests (""Subpoena Enforcement Action''). The Company disputed whether there was any basis for the
Subpoena Enforcement Action. The Company obtained an order from the Bankruptcy Court overseeing the
Company's Chapter 11 proceedings that AMERCO complied with the SEC's subpoenas at issue and, as a
result of this order, the District Court denied the SEC's application. The SEC recently Ñled a motion for
reconsideration of the Bankruptcy Court's order, which AMERCO has opposed. There has been no ruling on
the motion to reconsider.
F-31