Litigation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Litigation [Abstract]
LITIGATION	NOTE 10 — LITIGATION Litigation Relating to the Sunrise REIT Acquisition On May 3, 2007, we filed a lawsuit against HCP, Inc. (“HCP”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (the “District Court”), entitled Ventas, Inc. v. HCP, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-238-JGH. We asserted claims of tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage. Our complaint alleged that HCP interfered with our purchase agreement to acquire the assets and liabilities of Sunrise Senior Living Real Estate Investment Trust (“Sunrise REIT”) and with the process for unitholder consideration of the purchase agreement. The complaint alleged, among other things, that HCP made certain improper and misleading public statements and/or offers to acquire Sunrise REIT and that HCP’s actions caused us to suffer substantial damages, including, among other things, the payment of materially greater consideration to acquire Sunrise REIT resulting from the substantial increase in the purchase price above the original contract price necessary to obtain unitholder approval and increased costs associated with the delay in closing the acquisition, including increased costs to finance the transaction as a result of the delay. HCP brought counterclaims against us alleging misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation by Sunrise REIT related to its sale process, claiming that we were responsible for those actions as successor. HCP sought compensatory and punitive damages. On March 25, 2009, the District Court granted us judgment on the pleadings against all counterclaims brought by HCP and dismissed HCP’s counterclaims with prejudice. Thereafter, the District Court confirmed the dismissal of HCP’s counterclaims. On July 16, 2009, the District Court denied HCP’s summary judgment motion as to our claim for tortious interference with business advantage, permitting us to present that claim against HCP at trial. The District Court granted HCP’s motion for summary judgment as to our claim for tortious interference with contract and dismissed that claim. The District Court also ruled that we could not seek to recover a portion of our alleged damages. On September 4, 2009, the jury unanimously held that HCP tortiously interfered with our business expectation to acquire Sunrise REIT at the agreed price by employing significantly wrongful means such as fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit and coercion. The jury awarded us $101.6 million in compensatory damages, which is the full amount of damages the District Court permitted us to seek at trial. The District Court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict on September 8, 2009. On November 16, 2009, the District Court affirmed the jury’s verdict and denied all of HCP’s post-trial motions, including a motion requesting that the District Court overturn the jury’s verdict and enter judgment for HCP or, in the alternative, award HCP a new trial. The District Court also denied our motion for pre-judgment interest and/or to modify the jury award to increase it to reflect the currency rates in effect on September 8, 2009, the date of entry of the judgment. On November 17, 2009, HCP appealed the District Court’s judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”). HCP argued that the judgment against it should be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial and/or that judgment should be entered in its favor as a matter of law. On November 24, 2009, we filed a cross-appeal to the Sixth Circuit. In addition to maintaining the full benefit of our favorable jury verdict, in our cross-appeal, we asserted that we are entitled to substantial monetary relief in addition to the jury verdict, including punitive damages, additional compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest. On December 11, 2009, HCP posted a $102.8 million letter of credit in our favor to serve as security to stay execution of the jury verdict pending the appellate proceedings. On May 17, 2011, the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed the $101.6 million jury verdict in our favor and ruled that we are entitled to seek punitive damages against HCP for its conduct. The Sixth Circuit also denied our appeal seeking additional compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest. On June 27, 2011, the Sixth Circuit denied HCP’s motion to request a rehearing with respect to its decision. On July 5, 2011, the Sixth Circuit issued a mandate terminating the appellate proceedings and transferring jurisdiction back to the District Court for the enforcement of the $101.6 million compensatory damages award and the trial for punitive damages. On July 26, 2011, the District Court issued an order scheduling a jury trial on the matter of punitive damages for February 21, 2012. On August 22, 2011, the District Court ruled that HCP could not further delay enforcement of our $101.6 million compensatory damages award. On August 23, 2011, HCP paid us $102.8 million for the judgment plus certain costs and interest. After accrual of certain unpaid fees and $5.75 million in contingent fees for our outside legal counsel and payment of a $3 million donation to the Ventas Charitable Foundation, we recognized approximately $85 million in net proceeds from the compensatory damages award in our Consolidated Statements of Income. On October 25, 2011, HCP filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to challenge the Sixth Circuit’s May 17, 2011 decision affirming the compensatory damages award and ordering a trial on punitive damages. We are vigorously pursuing proceedings in the District Court on the matter of punitive damages. We cannot assure you as to the outcome of HCP’s petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which we believe will not be granted, or the District Court trial on the matter of punitive damages. Litigation Relating to the NHP Acquisition In the weeks following the announcement of our acquisition of NHP on February 28, 2011, purported stockholders of NHP filed seven lawsuits against NHP and its directors. Six of these lawsuits also named Ventas, Inc. as a defendant and five named our subsidiary, Needles Acquisition LLC, as a defendant. The purported stockholder plaintiffs commenced these actions in two jurisdictions: the Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County (the “California State Court”); and the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the “Maryland State Court”). All of these actions were brought as putative class actions, and two also purport to assert derivative claims on behalf of NHP. All of these stockholder complaints allege that NHP’s directors breached certain alleged duties to NHP’s stockholders by approving the merger agreement with us, and certain complaints allege that NHP aided and abetted those breaches. Those complaints that name Ventas, Inc. and Needles Acquisition LLC allege that we aided and abetted the purported breaches of certain alleged duties by NHP’s directors. All of the complaints request an injunction of the merger. Certain of the complaints also seek damages. In the California State Court, the following actions were filed purportedly on behalf of NHP stockholders: on February 28, 2011, a putative class action entitled Palma v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al.; on March 3, 2011, a putative class action entitled Barker v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al.; and on March 3, 2011, a putative class action entitled Davis v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al., which was subsequently amended on March 11, 2011 under the caption Davids v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al. Each action names NHP and members of the NHP board of directors as defendants. The Barker and Davids actions also name Ventas, Inc. as a defendant, and the Davids action names Needles Acquisition LLC as a defendant. Each complaint alleges, among other things, that NHP’s directors breached certain alleged duties by approving the merger agreement between us and NHP because the proposed transaction purportedly fails to maximize stockholder value and provides the directors personal benefits not shared by NHP stockholders, and the Barker and Davids actions allege that we aided and abetted those purported breaches. Along with other relief, the complaints seek an injunction against the closing of the proposed merger. On April 4, 2011, the defendants demurred and moved to stay the Palma, Barker, and Davids actions in favor of the parallel litigation in the Maryland State Court described below. On April 27, 2011, all three actions were consolidated pursuant to a Stipulation and Proposed Order on Consolidation of Related Actions signed by the parties on March 22, 2011. On May 12, 2011, the California State Court granted the defendants’ motion to stay. In the Maryland State Court, the following actions were filed purportedly on behalf of NHP stockholders: on March 7, 2011, a putative class action entitled Crowley v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al.; on March 10, 2011, a putative class action entitled Taylor v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et. al.; on March 17, 2011, a putative class action entitled Haughey Family Trust v. Pasquale, et al.; and on March 31, 2011, a putative class action entitled Rappoport v. Pasquale, et al. All four actions name NHP, its directors, Ventas, Inc. and Needles Acquisition LLC as defendants. All four actions allege, among other things, that NHP’s directors breached certain alleged duties by approving the merger agreement between us and NHP because the proposed transaction purportedly fails to maximize stockholder value and provides certain directors personal benefits not shared by NHP stockholders and that we aided and abetted those purported breaches. In addition to asserting direct claims on behalf of a putative class of NHP shareholders, the Haughey and Rappoport actions purport to bring derivative claims on behalf of NHP, asserting breaches of certain alleged duties by NHP’s directors in connection with their approval of the proposed transaction. All four actions seek to enjoin the proposed merger, and the Taylor action seeks damages. On March 30, 2011, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Maryland State Court entered an order consolidating the Crowley, Taylor and Haughey actions. The Rappoport action was consolidated with the other actions on April 15, 2011. On April 1, 2011, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Maryland State Court entered an order: (i) certifying a class of NHP shareholders; and (ii) providing for the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 19, 2011, which the defendants moved to dismiss on April 29, 2011. Plaintiffs opposed that motion on May 9, 2011. Plaintiffs moved for expedited discovery on April 19, 2011, and the defendants simultaneously opposed that motion and moved for a protective order staying discovery on April 26, 2011. The Maryland State Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery and granted defendants’ motion for a protective order on May 3, 2011. On May 6, 2011, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Maryland State Court’s grant of the protective order. The Maryland State Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration on May 11, 2011. On May 27, 2011, the Maryland State Court entered an order dismissing the consolidated action with prejudice. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of that order on June 6, 2011. On June 9, 2011, we and NHP agreed on a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in the consolidated action pending in Maryland State Court, which required us and NHP to make certain supplemental disclosures to stockholders concerning the merger. We and NHP made the supplemental disclosures on June 10, 2011. The settlement is subject to appropriate documentation by the parties and approval by the Maryland State Court. We believe that each of these actions is without merit. Proceedings against Tenants, Operators and Managers From time to time, Kindred, Brookdale Senior Living, Sunrise, Atria and our other tenants, operators and managers are parties to certain legal actions, regulatory investigations and claims arising in the conduct of their business and operations. Even though we generally are not party to these proceedings, the unfavorable resolution of any such actions, investigations or claims could, individually or in the aggregate, materially adversely affect such tenants’, operators’ or managers’ liquidity, financial condition or results of operations and their ability to satisfy their respective obligations to us, which, in turn, could have a Material Adverse Effect on us. Proceedings Indemnified and Defended by Third Parties From time to time, we are party to certain legal actions, regulatory investigations and claims against which third parties are contractually obligated to indemnify and defend us and hold us harmless. The tenants of our triple-net leased properties and, in some cases, affiliates of the tenants are required by the terms of their leases and other agreements with us to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless against certain actions, investigations and claims arising in the course of their business and related to the operations of our triple-net leased properties. In addition, third parties from whom we acquired certain of our assets are required by the terms of the related conveyance documents to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless against certain actions, investigations and claims related to the conveyed assets and arising prior to our ownership. In some cases, we hold a portion of the purchase price consideration in escrow as collateral for the indemnification obligations of third parties related to acquired assets. Certain tenants and other obligated third parties are currently defending us in these types of matters. We cannot assure you that our tenants or their affiliates or other obligated third parties will continue to defend us in these matters, that our tenants or their affiliates or other obligated third parties will have sufficient assets, income and access to financing to enable them to satisfy their defense and indemnification obligations to us or that any purchase price consideration held in escrow will be sufficient to satisfy claims for which we are entitled to indemnification. The unfavorable resolution of any such actions, investigations or claims could, individually or in the aggregate, materially adversely affect our tenants’ or other obligated third parties’ liquidity, financial condition or results of operations and their ability to satisfy their respective obligations to us, which, in turn, could have a Material Adverse Effect on us. Proceedings Arising in Connection with Senior Living and MOB Operations; Other Litigation From time to time, we are also party to various legal actions, regulatory investigations and claims (some of which may not be insured) arising in connection with our senior living and MOB operations or otherwise in the course of our business. In limited circumstances, the manager of the applicable seniors housing community or MOB may be contractually obligated to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless against such actions, investigations and claims. It is the opinion of management that, except as otherwise set forth in this Note 10, the disposition of any such actions, investigations and claims that are currently pending will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect on us. However, regardless of their merits, these matters may force us to expend significant financial resources. We are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions, investigations and claims, and if management’s assessment of our liability with respect thereto is incorrect, such actions, investigations and claims could have a Material Adverse Effect on us.

NOTE 10 — LITIGATION

Litigation Relating to the Sunrise REIT Acquisition

On May 3, 2007, we filed a lawsuit against HCP, Inc. (“HCP”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (the “District Court”), entitled Ventas, Inc. v. HCP, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-238-JGH. We asserted claims of tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage. Our complaint alleged that HCP interfered with our purchase agreement to acquire the assets and liabilities of Sunrise Senior Living Real Estate Investment Trust (“Sunrise REIT”) and with the process for unitholder consideration of the purchase agreement. The complaint alleged, among other things, that HCP made certain improper and misleading public statements and/or offers to acquire Sunrise REIT and that HCP’s actions caused us to suffer substantial damages, including, among other things, the payment of materially greater consideration to acquire Sunrise REIT resulting from the substantial increase in the purchase price above the original contract price necessary to obtain unitholder approval and increased costs associated with the delay in closing the acquisition, including increased costs to finance the transaction as a result of the delay.

HCP brought counterclaims against us alleging misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation by Sunrise REIT related to its sale process, claiming that we were responsible for those actions as successor. HCP sought compensatory and punitive damages. On March 25, 2009, the District Court granted us judgment on the pleadings against all counterclaims brought by HCP and dismissed HCP’s counterclaims with prejudice. Thereafter, the District Court confirmed the dismissal of HCP’s counterclaims.

On July 16, 2009, the District Court denied HCP’s summary judgment motion as to our claim for tortious interference with business advantage, permitting us to present that claim against HCP at trial. The District Court granted HCP’s motion for summary judgment as to our claim for tortious interference with contract and dismissed that claim. The District Court also ruled that we could not seek to recover a portion of our alleged damages.

On September 4, 2009, the jury unanimously held that HCP tortiously interfered with our business expectation to acquire Sunrise REIT at the agreed price by employing significantly wrongful means such as fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit and coercion. The jury awarded us $101.6 million in compensatory damages, which is the full amount of damages the District Court permitted us to seek at trial. The District Court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict on September 8, 2009.

On November 16, 2009, the District Court affirmed the jury’s verdict and denied all of HCP’s post-trial motions, including a motion requesting that the District Court overturn the jury’s verdict and enter judgment for HCP or, in the alternative, award HCP a new trial. The District Court also denied our motion for pre-judgment interest and/or to modify the jury award to increase it to reflect the currency rates in effect on September 8, 2009, the date of entry of the judgment.

On November 17, 2009, HCP appealed the District Court’s judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”). HCP argued that the judgment against it should be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial and/or that judgment should be entered in its favor as a matter of law.

On November 24, 2009, we filed a cross-appeal to the Sixth Circuit. In addition to maintaining the full benefit of our favorable jury verdict, in our cross-appeal, we asserted that we are entitled to substantial monetary relief in addition to the jury verdict, including punitive damages, additional compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest.

On December 11, 2009, HCP posted a $102.8 million letter of credit in our favor to serve as security to stay execution of the jury verdict pending the appellate proceedings.

On May 17, 2011, the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed the $101.6 million jury verdict in our favor and ruled that we are entitled to seek punitive damages against HCP for its conduct. The Sixth Circuit also denied our appeal seeking additional compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest. On June 27, 2011, the Sixth Circuit denied HCP’s motion to request a rehearing with respect to its decision.

On July 5, 2011, the Sixth Circuit issued a mandate terminating the appellate proceedings and transferring jurisdiction back to the District Court for the enforcement of the $101.6 million compensatory damages award and the trial for punitive damages. On July 26, 2011, the District Court issued an order scheduling a jury trial on the matter of punitive damages for February 21, 2012.

On August 22, 2011, the District Court ruled that HCP could not further delay enforcement of our $101.6 million compensatory damages award. On August 23, 2011, HCP paid us $102.8 million for the judgment plus certain costs and interest. After accrual of certain unpaid fees and $5.75 million in contingent fees for our outside legal counsel and payment of a $3 million donation to the Ventas Charitable Foundation, we recognized approximately $85 million in net proceeds from the compensatory damages award in our Consolidated Statements of Income.

On October 25, 2011, HCP filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to challenge the Sixth Circuit’s May 17, 2011 decision affirming the compensatory damages award and ordering a trial on punitive damages.

We are vigorously pursuing proceedings in the District Court on the matter of punitive damages. We cannot assure you as to the outcome of HCP’s petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which we believe will not be granted, or the District Court trial on the matter of punitive damages.

Litigation Relating to the NHP Acquisition

In the weeks following the announcement of our acquisition of NHP on February 28, 2011, purported stockholders of NHP filed seven lawsuits against NHP and its directors. Six of these lawsuits also named Ventas, Inc. as a defendant and five named our subsidiary, Needles Acquisition LLC, as a defendant. The purported stockholder plaintiffs commenced these actions in two jurisdictions: the Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County (the “California State Court”); and the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the “Maryland State Court”). All of these actions were brought as putative class actions, and two also purport to assert derivative claims on behalf of NHP. All of these stockholder complaints allege that NHP’s directors breached certain alleged duties to NHP’s stockholders by approving the merger agreement with us, and certain complaints allege that NHP aided and abetted those breaches. Those complaints that name Ventas, Inc. and Needles Acquisition LLC allege that we aided and abetted the purported breaches of certain alleged duties by NHP’s directors. All of the complaints request an injunction of the merger. Certain of the complaints also seek damages.

In the California State Court, the following actions were filed purportedly on behalf of NHP stockholders: on February 28, 2011, a putative class action entitled Palma v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al.; on March 3, 2011, a putative class action entitled Barker v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al.; and on March 3, 2011, a putative class action entitled Davis v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al., which was subsequently amended on March 11, 2011 under the caption Davids v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al. Each action names NHP and members of the NHP board of directors as defendants. The Barker and Davids actions also name Ventas, Inc. as a defendant, and the Davids action names Needles Acquisition LLC as a defendant. Each complaint alleges, among other things, that NHP’s directors breached certain alleged duties by approving the merger agreement between us and NHP because the proposed transaction purportedly fails to maximize stockholder value and provides the directors personal benefits not shared by NHP stockholders, and the Barker and Davids actions allege that we aided and abetted those purported breaches. Along with other relief, the complaints seek an injunction against the closing of the proposed merger. On April 4, 2011, the defendants demurred and moved to stay the Palma, Barker, and Davids actions in favor of the parallel litigation in the Maryland State Court described below. On April 27, 2011, all three actions were consolidated pursuant to a Stipulation and Proposed Order on Consolidation of Related Actions signed by the parties on March 22, 2011. On May 12, 2011, the California State Court granted the defendants’ motion to stay.

In the Maryland State Court, the following actions were filed purportedly on behalf of NHP stockholders: on March 7, 2011, a putative class action entitled Crowley v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et al.; on March 10, 2011, a putative class action entitled Taylor v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., et. al.; on March 17, 2011, a putative class action entitled Haughey Family Trust v. Pasquale, et al.; and on March 31, 2011, a putative class action entitled Rappoport v. Pasquale, et al. All four actions name NHP, its directors, Ventas, Inc. and Needles Acquisition LLC as defendants. All four actions allege, among other things, that NHP’s directors breached certain alleged duties by approving the merger agreement between us and NHP because the proposed transaction purportedly fails to maximize stockholder value and provides certain directors personal benefits not shared by NHP stockholders and that we aided and abetted those purported breaches. In addition to asserting direct claims on behalf of a putative class of NHP shareholders, the Haughey and Rappoport actions purport to bring derivative claims on behalf of NHP, asserting breaches of certain alleged duties by NHP’s directors in connection with their approval of the proposed transaction. All four actions seek to enjoin the proposed merger, and the Taylor action seeks damages.

On March 30, 2011, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Maryland State Court entered an order consolidating the Crowley, Taylor and Haughey actions. The Rappoport action was consolidated with the other actions on April 15, 2011.

On April 1, 2011, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Maryland State Court entered an order: (i) certifying a class of NHP shareholders; and (ii) providing for the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 19, 2011, which the defendants moved to dismiss on April 29, 2011. Plaintiffs opposed that motion on May 9, 2011. Plaintiffs moved for expedited discovery on April 19, 2011, and the defendants simultaneously opposed that motion and moved for a protective order staying discovery on April 26, 2011. The Maryland State Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery and granted defendants’ motion for a protective order on May 3, 2011. On May 6, 2011, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Maryland State Court’s grant of the protective order. The Maryland State Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration on May 11, 2011. On May 27, 2011, the Maryland State Court entered an order dismissing the consolidated action with prejudice. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of that order on June 6, 2011.

On June 9, 2011, we and NHP agreed on a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in the consolidated action pending in Maryland State Court, which required us and NHP to make certain supplemental disclosures to stockholders concerning the merger. We and NHP made the supplemental disclosures on June 10, 2011. The settlement is subject to appropriate documentation by the parties and approval by the Maryland State Court.

We believe that each of these actions is without merit.

Proceedings against Tenants, Operators and Managers

From time to time, Kindred, Brookdale Senior Living, Sunrise, Atria and our other tenants, operators and managers are parties to certain legal actions, regulatory investigations and claims arising in the conduct of their business and operations. Even though we generally are not party to these proceedings, the unfavorable resolution of any such actions, investigations or claims could, individually or in the aggregate, materially adversely affect such tenants’, operators’ or managers’ liquidity, financial condition or results of operations and their ability to satisfy their respective obligations to us, which, in turn, could have a Material Adverse Effect on us.

Proceedings Indemnified and Defended by Third Parties

From time to time, we are party to certain legal actions, regulatory investigations and claims against which third parties are contractually obligated to indemnify and defend us and hold us harmless. The tenants of our triple-net leased properties and, in some cases, affiliates of the tenants are required by the terms of their leases and other agreements with us to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless against certain actions, investigations and claims arising in the course of their business and related to the operations of our triple-net leased properties. In addition, third parties from whom we acquired certain of our assets are required by the terms of the related conveyance documents to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless against certain actions, investigations and claims related to the conveyed assets and arising prior to our ownership. In some cases, we hold a portion of the purchase price consideration in escrow as collateral for the indemnification obligations of third parties related to acquired assets. Certain tenants and other obligated third parties are currently defending us in these types of matters. We cannot assure you that our tenants or their affiliates or other obligated third parties will continue to defend us in these matters, that our tenants or their affiliates or other obligated third parties will have sufficient assets, income and access to financing to enable them to satisfy their defense and indemnification obligations to us or that any purchase price consideration held in escrow will be sufficient to satisfy claims for which we are entitled to indemnification. The unfavorable resolution of any such actions, investigations or claims could, individually or in the aggregate, materially adversely affect our tenants’ or other obligated third parties’ liquidity, financial condition or results of operations and their ability to satisfy their respective obligations to us, which, in turn, could have a Material Adverse Effect on us.

Proceedings Arising in Connection with Senior Living and MOB Operations; Other Litigation

From time to time, we are also party to various legal actions, regulatory investigations and claims (some of which may not be insured) arising in connection with our senior living and MOB operations or otherwise in the course of our business. In limited circumstances, the manager of the applicable seniors housing community or MOB may be contractually obligated to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless against such actions, investigations and claims. It is the opinion of management that, except as otherwise set forth in this Note 10, the disposition of any such actions, investigations and claims that are currently pending will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect on us. However, regardless of their merits, these matters may force us to expend significant financial resources. We are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions, investigations and claims, and if management’s assessment of our liability with respect thereto is incorrect, such actions, investigations and claims could have a Material Adverse Effect on us.