Sunoco 2008 Annual Report Download - page 36

Abrevaya and Armstrong. Sunoco reached a settlement with the plaintiffs, which is awaiting approval by the
court. The impact of the settlement was not material.
The MDL Litigation includes the following cases that were filed in March 2007:
City of Glen Cove Water District v. Sunoco, et al. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York);
Town of Huntington/Dix Hills Water District v. Sunoco, et al. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
York);
Albertson Water District v. Sunoco, et al. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York);
City of Greenlawn Water District v. Sunoco, et al. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York);
City of Tampa Bay Water Authority v. Sunoco, et al. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida);
City of Inverness Water District v. Sunoco, et al. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida);
Homosassa Water District v. Sunoco, et al. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida); and
The City of Crystal River v. Sunoco, et al. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida).
For the group of MTBE cases that are not covered by the settlement, there has been insufficient information
developed about the plaintiffs’ legal theories or the facts that would be relevant to an analysis of the ultimate
liability to Sunoco. Based on the current law and facts available at this time, no accrual has been established for
any potential damages at December 31, 2008 and Sunoco believes that these cases will not have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial position.
Other Litigation
In November 2006, a jury entered a verdict in an action brought by the State of New York (State of New
York v. LVF Realty, et al.) seeking to recover approximately $57 thousand in investigation costs incurred by the
state at a service station located in Inwood, NY, plus interest and penalties. Sunoco owned the property from the
1940s until 1985 and supplied gasoline to the station until 2003. Sunoco denied that it was responsible for the
contamination. The jury found Sunoco responsible for 80 percent of the state’s costs plus interest and assessed a
penalty against Sunoco of $6 million. In June 2007, the trial court judge in this case denied Sunoco’s post-trial
motion requesting that the $6 million penalty verdict be set aside. Sunoco intends to continue to aggressively
challenge the verdict and has filed an appeal of this matter. (See also the Company’s Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.)
Many other legal and administrative proceedings are pending or may be brought against Sunoco arising out
of its current and past operations, including matters related to commercial and tax disputes, product liability,
antitrust, employment claims, leaks from pipelines and underground storage tanks, natural resource damage
claims, premises-liability claims, allegations of exposures of third parties to toxic substances (such as benzene or
asbestos) and general environmental claims. Although the ultimate outcome of these proceedings cannot be
ascertained at this time, it is reasonably possible that some of them could be resolved unfavorably to Sunoco.
Management of Sunoco believes that any liabilities that may arise from such matters would not be material in
relation to Sunoco’s business or consolidated financial position at December 31, 2008.
28