U-Haul 2009 Annual Report Download - page 16

12
In November 2006, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In December 2006, the Defendants filed motions to
dismiss, based on various legal theories. In March 2007, the Court denied AMERCO’s motion to dismiss regarding
the issue of demand futility, stating that “Plaintiffs have satisfied the heightened pleading requirements of demand
futility by showing a majority of the members of the AMERCO Board of Directors were interested parties in the
SAC transactions.” The Court heard oral argument on the remainder of the Defendants’ motions to dismiss,
including the motion (“Goldwasser Motion”) based on the fact that the subject matter of the lawsuit had been settled
and dismissed in earlier litigation known as Goldwasser v. Shoen, C.V.N.-94-00810-ECR (D.Nev), Washoe County,
Nevada. In addition, in September and October 2007, the Defendants filed Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings
or in the Alternative Summary Judgment, based on the fact that the stockholders of the Company had ratified the
underlying transactions at the 2007 annual meeting of stockholders of AMERCO. In December 2007, the Court
denied this motion. This ruling does not preclude a renewed motion for summary judgment after discovery and
further proceedings on these issues. On April 7, 2008, the litigation was dismissed, on the basis of the Goldwasser
Motion. On May 8, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of such dismissal to the Nevada Supreme Court. On
May 20, 2008, AMERCO filed a cross appeal relating to the denial of its Motion to Dismiss in regard to demand
futility. The appeals are currently pending and the issues will be fully briefed before the Nevada Supreme Court by
September 13, 2009.
Environmental
AMERCO is 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,
claims or proceedings involving AMERCO, individually or in the aggregate, are expected to result in a material
adverse effect on AMERCO’s financial position or results of operations.
Compliance with environmental requirements of federal, state and local governments may significantly affect
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 necessary. Since 1988, Real Estate has managed a testing and removal program for
underground storage tanks.
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 result in a
material adverse effect on AMERCO’s financial position or results of operations. Real Estate expects to spend
approximately $5.2 million in total through 2011 to remediate these properties.
Other
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 of these other matters will have a material effect on the Company’s
financial position or results of operations.
Item 4.
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
No matter was submitted to a vote of the security holders of AMERCO during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year
covered by this report, through the solicitation of proxies or otherwise.