Xcel Energy 2006 Annual Report Download - page 118

108
to U.S. District Judge Pro. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on Dec. 19, 2005. The plaintiffs subsequently
appealed and the appeal is pending.
Utility Savings and Refund Services LLP vs. Reliant Energy Services Inc. — On Nov. 29, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California by Utility Savings and Refund Services LLP and subsequently served on
Xcel Energy. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas purchasers, alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported
natural gas trades to market trade publications in an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices in California and engaged in a
conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to inflate prices. This case has been consolidated with Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. vs.
Centerpoint Energy et al. and assigned to U.S. District Judge Pro. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on
Dec. 19, 2005. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed and the appeal is pending.
Abelman Art Glass vs. Ercana Corporation et al. — On Dec. 13, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California by Abelman Art Glass and subsequently served on Xcel Energy. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a
purported class of natural gas purchasers, alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported natural gas trades to market trade publications in
an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices in California and engaged in a conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to inflate
prices. This case has been consolidated with Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. vs. Centerpoint Energy et al and assigned to U.S. District Judge
Pro. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on Dec. 19, 2005. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals and oral arguments on the appeal were heard on Feb. 13, 2007.
Sinclair Oil Corporation vs. e prime, inc. and Xcel Energy Inc. — On July 18, 2005, Sinclair Oil Corporation filed a lawsuit against
Xcel Energy and its former subsidiary e prime, inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma alleging liability
and damages for purported misreporting of price information for natural gas to trade publications in an effort to artificially increase
natural gas prices. The complaint also alleges that e prime and Xcel Energy engaged in a conspiracy with other natural gas sellers to
inflate prices through alleged false reporting of natural gas prices. In response, e prime and Xcel Energy filed a motion with the Multi-
District Litigation (MDL) panel to have the matter transferred to U.S. District Judge Pro, who is the judge assigned to western area
wholesale natural gas marketing litigation and filed a second motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In response to this motion, this matter was
conditionally transferred to U.S. District Court Judge Pro. Judge Pro granted the motion to dismiss, and Sinclair appealed to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Sinclair’s appeal has been stayed pending the Ninth Circuit’s disposition of the Abelman Art Glass and
Texas-Ohio appeals.
Ever-Bloom Inc. vs. Xcel Energy Inc. and e prime et al. — On June 21, 2005, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California by Ever-Bloom, Inc. The lawsuit names as defendants, among others, Xcel Energy and e
prime. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas purchasers, alleges that defendants falsely reported natural gas
trades to market trade publications in an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices in California, purportedly in violation of the
Sherman Act. This matter has been stayed pending the outcome of cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Learjet, Inc. vs. e prime and Xcel Energy et al. — On Nov. 4, 2005, a purported class action complaint was filed in State Court for
Wyandotte County of Kansas on behalf of all natural gas producers in Kansas. The lawsuit alleges that e prime, Xcel Energy and other
named defendants conspired to raise the market price of natural gas in Kansas by, among other things, inaccurately reporting price and
volume information to the market trade publications. On Dec. 7, 2005, the state court granted the defendants motion to remove this
matter to the U.S. District Court in Kansas. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for remand, which was denied on Aug. 3, 2006. Plaintiffs in
this matter and in the J.P. Morgan Trust case, discussed below, have moved the judicial panel on MDL for a separate MDL docket to
be set up in Kansas Federal Court. Xcel Energy’s motion to dismiss the complaint is pending.
J.P. Morgan Trust Company vs. e prime and Xcel Energy Inc. et al. — On Oct. 17, 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, in its
capacity as the liquidating trustee for Farmland Industries Liquidating Trust, filed an amended complaint in Kansas State Court adding
defendants, including Xcel Energy and e prime, to a previously filed complaint alleging that the defendants inaccurately reported
natural gas trades to market trade publications in an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices. The lawsuit was removed to the U.S.
District Court in Kansas and subsequently transferred to U.S. District Court Judge Pro in Nevada pursuant to an order from the MDL
panel. A motion to remand to state court filed by plaintiffs has been denied. A motion to dismiss plaintiff’s case was granted in
December 2006. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to amend the judgment and defendents filed an opposition to that motion in
February 2007.
Breckenridge Brewery vs. e prime and Xcel Energy Inc. et al. — In May, 2006, Breckenridge Brewery, a Colorado corporation, filed
a complaint in Colorado State District Court for the City and County of Denver alleging that the defendants, including e prime and
Xcel Energy, unlawfully prevented full and free competition in the trading and sale of natural gas, or controlled the market price of
natural gas, and engaged in a conspiracy in constraint of trade. Notice of removal to federal court on behalf of Xcel Energy Inc. and e
prime, inc. was filed in June 2006. On July 6, 2006, the Colorado State District Court granted an enlargement of time within which to
file a pleading in response to the complaint.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the matter to state court, which was denied in October 2006, and the matter has been transferred to
U.S. District Court Judge Pro, in Nevada.