World Fuel Services 2008 Annual Report Download - page 91

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 91 of the 2008 World Fuel Services 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 108

  • 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

WORLD FUEL SERVICES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
Legal Matters
Miami Airport Litigation
In April 2001, Miami-Dade County, Florida (the “County”) filed suit (the “County Suit”) in the state circuit
court in and for Miami-Dade County against 17 defendants to seek reimbursement for the cost of remediating
environmental contamination at Miami International Airport (the “Airport”).
Also in April 2001, the County sent a letter to approximately 250 potentially responsible parties (“PRP’s”),
including World Fuel Services Corporation and one of our subsidiaries, advising of our potential liability for the
clean-up costs of the contamination that is the subject of the County Suit. The County has threatened to add the
PRP’s as defendants in the County Suit, unless they agree to share in the cost of the environmental clean-up at
the Airport. We have advised the County that: (1) neither we nor any of our subsidiaries were responsible for any
environmental contamination at the Airport, and (2) to the extent that we or any of our subsidiaries were so
responsible, our liability was subject to indemnification by the County pursuant to the indemnity provisions
contained in our lease agreement with the County.
If we are added as a defendant in the County Suit, we would vigorously defend any claims, and we believe
our liability in these matters (if any) should be adequately covered by the indemnification obligations of the
County.
Panama Litigation
In July 2005, Atlantic Service Supply, S.A. (“Atlantic”), a Panamanian fuel barge operator, filed suit against
Tramp Oil & Marine Limited (“TOM”), one of our subsidiaries, alleging that TOM is jointly and severally liable
for barging fees of approximately $1.0 million owed to Atlantic by Isthmian Petroleum Supply & Services, S.A.
(“Isthmian”). In July 2007, the court ruled against Atlantic, finding that TOM was not liable for any barging fees
owed to Atlantic by Isthmian. Isthmian has appealed this ruling. TOM and Isthmian were parties to an agreement
pursuant to which Isthmian provided storage, delivery and other fuel-related services to TOM in Panama. In its
suit, Atlantic alleges (1) Isthmian breached a barge charter agreement entered into between the two parties,
(2) Isthmian entered into the agreement as an agent on behalf of TOM, and (3) TOM is liable, as a principal, for
Isthmian’s breach of the agreement. Although TOM utilized the services of Isthmian for storage and delivery of
fuel, at no time did TOM request or authorize Isthmian to enter into any agreement with Atlantic, nor did TOM
request that Isthmian utilize Atlantic to provide services on its behalf. We do not believe that Isthmian acted as
TOM’s agent in its dealings with Atlantic, and we do not believe TOM is responsible for any liabilities of
Isthmian. We believe this suit is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the action.
In August 2005, TOM filed a lawsuit against Isthmian seeking damages of approximately $3.1 million for
breach of contract and wrongful conversion of fuel owned by TOM. In September 2005, Isthmian filed a
counterclaim against TOM alleging that TOM is in breach of contract and seeking $5.0 million in damages.
These actions are pending in a Panamanian maritime court. We believe Isthmian’s suit against TOM is without
merit and we intend to vigorously defend the action.
Brendan Airways Litigation
One of our subsidiaries, World Fuel Services, Inc. (“WFSI”), is involved in a dispute with Brendan
Airways, LLC (“Brendan”), an aviation fuel customer, with respect to certain amounts Brendan claims to have
been overcharged in connection with fuel sale transactions from 2003 to 2006. In August 2007, WFSI filed an
action in the state circuit court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, seeking declaratory relief with respect to
83