XML 80 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
9. Contingencies | 9. Contingencies Shoen In September 2002, Paul F. Shoen filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Washoe County, captioned Paul F. Shoen vs. SAC Holding Corporation et al., CV 02-05602, 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 as a nominal Defendant in the case. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary 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 prior to the filing of the complaint. The complaint seeks a declaration that such transfers are void as well as unspecified damages. In October 2002, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Also in October 2002, Ron Belec filed 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 in January 2003, M.S. Management Company, Inc. filed 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 filed against these parties. Each of these suits is substantially similar to the Paul F. Shoen case. The Court consolidated the five cases and thereafter dismissed these actions in May 2003, concluding that the AMERCO Board of Directors had the requisite level of independence required in order to have these claims resolved by the Board. Plaintiffs appealed this decision and, in July 2006, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with its ruling, allowing the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and plead in addition to substantive claims, demand futility. 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 (the “Court”). On May 20, 2008, AMERCO filed a cross appeal relating to the denial of its Motion to Dismiss in regard to demand futility. On May 12, 2011, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. First, the Court ruled that the Goldwasser settlement did not release claims that arose after the agreement and, therefore, reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the Complaint on that ground. Second, the Court affirmed the district court’s determination that the in pari delicto defense is available in a derivative suit and reversed and remanded to the district court to determine if the defense applies to this matter. Third, the Court remanded to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether demand upon the AMERCO Board was, in fact, futile. Fourth, the Court invited AMERCO to seek a ruling from the district court as to the legal effect of the AMERCO Shareholders’ 2008 ratification of the underlying AMERCO/SAC transactions. Last, as to individual claims for relief, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty claims as to all defendants except Mark Shoen. The Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty: ultra vires Acts claim as to all defendants. The Court reversed the district court’s dismissal of aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the SAC entities. The Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the claim for wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage as to all defendants. On remand, on July 22, 2011, AMERCO filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the Shareholder’s Ratification of the SAC transactions. In addition, on August 29, 2011, certain defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claim for Wrongful Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage. On August 31, 2011, the trial court held a status conference and entered an order setting forth the briefing schedule for the two motions. On December 23, 2011, the trial court denied AMERCO’s motion for summary judgment and certain defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court set a discovery schedule on the limited issue of demand futility. A four day evidentiary hearing on demand futility was scheduled to begin on August 20, 2012. On August 6, 2012, Max Belec and Glenbrook Capital Limited Partnership, voluntarily dismissed their complaint with prejudice. On August 20, 2012, the remaining plaintiffs, Paul Shoen and Alan Kahn, dismissed their complaint with prejudice. AMERCO paid none of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees or costs. In return, AMERCO released plaintiffs from further related litigation based on plaintiffs’ conduct in this litigation. Moreover, Paul Shoen, Alan Kahn, Grover Wickersham and numerous individuals and entities related to Paul Shoen and Grover Wickersham agreed to sell all of their AMERCO securities in the open market and not sue AMERCO or any of the other defendants for 20 years. If the plaintiffs or the related parties breach this agreement, Paul Shoen will be responsible for $5,000,000 in liquidated damages. The parties filed a final Mutual Release Agreement with the Court on October 16, 2012, thereby terminating the case in its entirety, with prejudice. Environmental Compliance with environmental requirements of federal, state and local governments has the potential to significantly affect Real Estate’s business operations. Among other things, these requirements regulate the discharge of materials into the air, land and water 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. 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 and results of operations.

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration