U-Haul 2007 Annual Report Download - page 17

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 17 of the 2007 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 146

  • 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
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146

11
Legal Proceedings
S
s’ Motions to Dismiss and requested
efing. The supplemental briefs were filed on May 14, 2007.
E
aims or
pr
ssary. Since 1988, Real Estate has managed a testing and removal program for underground storage
ta
sults. Real Estate expects to spend approximately
llion in total through 2011 to remediate these properties.
O
f these other matters will have a material effect on the Company’ s
financial position and results of operations.
Item 3.
hoen
On September 24, 2002, Paul F. Shoen filed a derivative action in the Second Judicial District Court of the State
of Nevada, Washoe County, captioned Paul F. Shoen vs. SAC Holding Corporation et al., CV02-05602, seeking
damages and equitable relief on behalf of AMERCO from SAC Holdings and certain current and former members of
the AMERCO Board of Directors, including Edward J. Shoen, Mark V. Shoen and James P. Shoen as defendants.
AMERCO is named a nominal defendant for purposes of the derivative action. The complaint alleges breach of
fiduciary duty, self-dealing, usurpation of corporate opportunities, wrongful interference with prospective economic
advantage and unjust enrichment and seeks the unwinding of sales of self-storage properties by subsidiaries of
AMERCO to SAC Holdings prior to the filing of the complaint. The complaint seeks a declaration that such
transfers are void as well as unspecified damages. On October 28, 2002, AMERCO, the Shoen directors, the non-
Shoen directors and SAC Holdings filed Motions to Dismiss the complaint. In addition, on October 28, 2002, Ron
Belec filed a derivative action in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Washoe County,
captioned Ron Belec vs. William E. Carty, et al., CV 02-06331 and on January 16, 2003, M.S. Management
Company, Inc. filed a derivative action in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Washoe
County, captioned M.S. Management Company, Inc. vs. William E. Carty, et al., CV 03-00386. Two additional
derivative suits were also filed against these parties. These additional suits are substantially similar to the Paul F.
Shoen derivative action. The five suits assert virtually identical claims. In fact, three of the five plaintiffs are parties
who are working closely together and chose to file the same claims multiple times. These lawsuits alleged that the
AMERCO Board lacked independence. In reaching its decision to dismiss these claims, the court determined that
the AMERCO Board of Directors had the requisite level of independence required in order to have these claims
resolved by the Board. The court consolidated all five complaints before dismissing them on May 28, 2003.
Plaintiffs appealed and, on July 13, 2006, the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed and remanded the claim to the trial
court for proceedings consistent with its ruling, allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and plead in
addition to substantive claims, demand futility. On November 8, 2006, the nominal plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint. On December 22, 2006, the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss. Briefing was concluded on February
21, 2007. On March 30, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on Defendant
supplemental bri
nvironmental
In the normal course of business, AMERCO is a defendant in a number of suits and claims. AMERCO is also a
party to several administrative proceedings arising from state and local provisions that regulate the removal and/or
cleanup of underground fuel storage tanks. It is the opinion of management, that none of these suits, cl
oceedings involving AMERCO, individually or in the aggregate, are expected to result in a material loss.
Compliance with environmental requirements of federal, state and local governments significantly affects Real
Estate’ s business operations. Among other things, these requirements regulate the discharge of materials into the
water, air and land and govern the use and disposal of hazardous substances. Real Estate is aware of issues regarding
hazardous substances on some of its properties. Real Estate regularly makes capital and operating expenditures to
stay in compliance with environmental laws and has put in place a remedial plan at each site where it believes such a
plan is nece
nks.
Based upon the information currently available to Real Estate, compliance with the environmental laws and its
share of the costs of investigation and cleanup of known hazardous waste sites are not expected to have a material
adverse effect on AMERCO’ s financial position or operating re
$7.6 mi
ther
The Company is named as a defendant in various other litigation and claims arising out of the normal course of
business. In management’ s opinion none o