U-Haul 2004 Annual Report Download - page 15

verdict and denying Oxford's motion for New Trial Or, in The Alternative, Remittitur. Oxford has perfected
its appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court. On January 27, 2004, the matter was argued before the West
Virginia Supreme Court and taken under advisement. On June 17, 2004 the West Virginia Supreme Court
reversed and vacated the punitive damages award and remanded the case for a new trial on punitive damages.
The Company has accrued $725,000, which represents management's best estimate of the costs associated
with legal fees to appeal and re-try the case. The Company has a $5 million E&O policy and has notiÑed the
carrier of the West Virginia Supreme Court's ruling. The E&O carrier is disputing coverage.
Shoen
On September 24, 2002, Paul F. Shoen Ñled 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 Ñduciary 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 over the last
several years. The complaint seeks a declaration that such transfers are void as well as unspeciÑed damages.
On October 28, 2002, AMERCO, the Shoen directors, the non-Shoen directors and SAC Holdings Ñled
Motions to Dismiss the complaint. In addition, on October 28, 2002, Ron Belec Ñled 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. Ñled 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 Ñled against these parties. These additional suits are substantially similar to the Paul F. Shoen derivative
action. The Ñve suits assert virtually identical claims. In fact, three of the Ñve plaintiÅs are parties who are
working closely together and chose to Ñle the same claims multiple times. The court consolidated all Ñve
complaints before dismissing them on May 28, 2003. PlaintiÅs have Ñled a notice of appeal. These lawsuits
falsely 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.
Article Four Trust
AMERCO is a defendant in four putative class action lawsuits. Article Four Trust v. AMERCO, et al.,
District of Nevada, United States District Court, Case No. CV-N-03-0050-DWH-VPC. Article Four Trust, a
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
10