Regulatory Matters	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Regulatory Matters	NOTE 6 – REGULATORY MATTERS UNITIL’S REGULATORY MATTERS ARE DESCRIBED IN NOTE 5 TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN ITEM 8 OF PART II OF UNITIL CORPORATION’S FORM 10-K FOR DECEMBER 31, 2012 AS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON JANUARY 30, 2013. Regulatory Matters Granite State – Base Rates – Granite State has in place a FERC approved rate settlement agreement under which it is permitted each June to file a limited Section 4 rate case that includes incremental annual rate adjustments to recover the revenue requirements for certain specified future capital cost additions to gas transmission plant projects. In June 2013, Granite State submitted to the FERC its latest incremental annual rate adjustment, in the amount of $0.4 million, with rates effective August 1, 2013. The FERC approved the increase on July 30, 2013. Unitil Energy – Base Rates – On April 26, 2011, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (NHPUC) approved a rate settlement with a permanent increase of $5.2 million in annual revenue effective July 1, 2010, and an additional increase of $5.0 million in annual revenue effective May 1, 2011. The settlement extends through May 1, 2016 and provides for a long-term rate plan and earnings sharing mechanism, with step increases in annual revenue on May 1, 2012, May 1, 2013 and May 1, 2014, to support Unitil Energy’s continued capital improvements to its distribution system. Unitil Energy’s first step increase was approved as filed, effective May 1, 2012. Unitil Energy’s second step increase of $2.8 million went into effect on May 1, 2013, which included rate increases to recover capital improvements, increased spending for its vegetation management and reliability enhancement programs and an increase in its storm reserve fund. Northern Utilities – Base Rates Filed – In April 2013, Northern Utilities filed separate rate cases, with the NHPUC and MPUC, respectively, requesting approval to increase its natural gas distribution base rates. In New Hampshire, the Company requested an increase of $5.2 million in gas distribution base revenue or approximately 9.4 percent over test year operating revenue. In Maine, the Company requested an increase of $4.6 million in gas distribution base revenue or approximately 6.3 percent over test year operating revenue. Both filings include proposed multi-year rate plans that include cost tracking mechanisms to recover future capital costs associated with Northern Utilities’ infrastructure replacements and safety and reliability improvements to the natural gas distribution system. In New Hampshire Northern Utilities has been authorized to implement temporary rates to collect a $2.5 million increase (annualized) in gas distribution revenue, effective July 1, 2013 and the Company expects a final rate order from the NHPUC in the first half of 2014. Once permanent rates are approved by the NHPUC, they will be reconciled to the date temporary rates were established, July 1, 2013. In Maine, the Company is currently in settlement discussions with the Staff of the MPUC and the Maine Office of Public Advocate to resolve any remaining outstanding issues. Any settlement agreement among the parties in the Northern Utilities Maine rate case is subject to approval by the MPUC. The Company expects a final rate order from the MPUC by the end of 2013. Fitchburg – Electric Base Rates Filed – In July 2013, Fitchburg filed a rate case with the MDPU requesting approval to increase its electric distribution rates. The Company requested an increase of $6.7 million in electric base revenue or approximately 11.5 percent over test year operating revenue. Included in the amount of this annual increase is approximately $2.1 million for the recovery over a three year period of extraordinary storm costs incurred by the Company related to two severe storms in 2011, Tropical Storm Irene and the October snowstorm, and Superstorm Sandy in 2012. The filing includes a proposed modified revenue decoupling mechanism by means of either a capital cost adjustment mechanism or a multi-year rate plan featuring a revenue cap index. The filing also includes a proposed major storm reserve fund to address the costs of future major storms by collecting $2.8 million per year through a reconciling storm recovery adjustment factor beginning January 1, 2015. The rate case filing is subject to regulatory review and approval with final rate orders expected in the second quarter of 2014. Major Storms – Fitchburg and Unitil Energy Superstorm Sandy – On October 29-30, 2012, a severe storm struck the Eastern seaboard of the United States, causing extensive damage to electric facilities and loss of service to significant numbers of customers of several utilities. Fitchburg and Unitil Energy incurred approximately $1.1 million and $2.7 million, respectively, in costs for the repair and replacement of electric distribution systems damaged during the storm, including $0.3 million and $0.4 million related to capital construction for Fitchburg and Unitil Energy, respectively. The amount and timing of the cost recovery of these storm restoration expenditures for Fitchburg will be determined in its rate case. The cost recovery for Unitil Energy has been approved as discussed below. The Company does not believe these storm restoration expenditures and the timing of cost recovery will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. Fitchburg – Storm Cost Deferral – On May 1, 2012 the MDPU approved Fitchburg’s request to defer $4.3 million of storm costs associated with two severe storms which occurred in 2011, and Fitchburg is seeking recovery of these costs in the electric rate case it filed in July 2013. Unitil Energy – 2012 Storm Costs – On April 25, 2013, the NHPUC approved the recovery of $2.3 million of costs to repair damage to Unitil Energy’s electrical system resulting from Superstorm Sandy over a five-year period, with carrying charges at the Company’s long-term cost of debt, net of deferred taxes, or 4.52%, applied to the uncollected balance through the recovery period. Fitchburg – Electric Operations – On November 30, 2012, Fitchburg submitted its annual reconciliation of costs and revenues for transition and transmission under its restructuring plan. The filing also includes the reconciliation of costs and revenues for a number of other surcharges and cost factors which are subject to review and approval by the MDPU. All of the rates were approved effective January 1, 2013 for billing purposes, subject to reconciliation pending investigation by the MDPU. The reconciliation of costs and revenues for transition and transmission was approved on May 14, 2013. The reconciliation of costs and revenues for other surcharge and cost factors remains pending. Fitchburg – Service Quality – On March 1, 2013, Fitchburg submitted its 2012 Service Quality Reports for both its gas and electric divisions. Fitchburg reported that it met or exceeded its benchmarks for service quality performance in all metrics for both its gas and electric divisions. On March 29, 2013, the MDPU issued its order approving the 2011 Service Quality Report for Fitchburg’s gas division. The 2010-2012 Service Quality reports for Fitchburg’s electric division remain pending. On December 11, 2012, the MDPU opened an investigation into the service quality provided by the gas and electric distribution companies in Massachusetts and the Service Quality guidelines currently in effect. The MDPU investigation will review existing and potential new reliability, safety, and customer satisfaction metrics; potential penalties for downed wire response; potential clean energy metrics; penalty provisions, including penalty offsets for superior performance in other metrics for poor performance on a different metric; and review of historic data for use in establishing service quality benchmarks. Fitchburg has been an active participant in this docket, which remains pending. Fitchburg – Other – On February 5, 2013, there was a natural gas explosion in the city of Fitchburg, Massachusetts in an area served by Fitchburg’s gas division resulting in property damage to a number of commercial and residential properties. The MDPU, pursuant to its authority under state and federal law, has commenced an investigation of the incident, with which Fitchburg is cooperating. The Company does not believe this incident or investigation will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. On February 11, 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued its decision in the Attorney General’s (AG) appeal of the MDPU orders relating to Fitchburg’s recovery of bad debt expense. The SJC agreed with the AG that the MDPU was required to hold hearings regarding changes in Fitchburg’s tariff and rates, and on that basis vacated the MDPU orders. The SJC, however, declined to rule on an appropriate remedy, and remanded the cases back to the MDPU for consideration of that issue. In the Company’s August 1, 2011 rate decision, the MDPU held that the approval of dollar for dollar collection of supply-related bad debt in the Company’s rate cases in 2006 (gas) and 2007 (electric) satisfied the requirement for a hearing ordered by the SJC. The MDPU has opened a docket to address the amounts collected by Fitchburg between the time the MDPU first approved dollar for dollar collection of the Company’s bad debt, and the rate decisions in 2006 and 2007. Briefs were filed in June 2013. This matter remains pending before the MDPU. On July 2, 2008, the Governor of Massachusetts signed into law “The Green Communities Act” (the GC Act), an energy policy statute designed to substantially increase energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy resources in Massachusetts. The GC Act provides for utilities to recover in rates the incremental costs associated with its various mandated programs. Several regulatory proceedings have been initiated to implement various provisions of the GC Act, including provisions for each distribution company to file enhanced three-year energy efficiency investment plans, plans to establish smart grid pilot programs, proposals to purchase long-term contracts for renewable energy, special tariffs to allow the net metering of customer-owned renewable generation, and terms and conditions for purchasing supplier receivables. Fitchburg’s first two three-year energy efficiency investment plans, plans to establish smart grid pilot programs, net metering tariffs and proposals to purchase long-term contracts for renewable energy have been approved by the MDPU. Terms and conditions for purchasing supplier receivables are under review in a separately designated docket. On August 3, 2012, the Governor of Massachusetts signed into law “An Act Relative to Competitively Priced Electricity in the Commonwealth”, which both increases electric distribution companies’ obligations to purchase renewable energy resources and the availability of net metering. This act also includes changes to the MDPU’s ratemaking procedures and authority for reviewing mergers and acquisitions for electric and gas distribution companies. With these changes, electric distribution companies are required to file rate schedules every five years, and gas distribution companies every ten years. The MDPU has also opened a proceeding, as mandated by the act, to establish a cost-based rate design for costs that are currently recovered from distribution customers through a reconciling factor. Fitchburg has participated with the other electric utilities in Massachusetts and contracted for its pro-rata share of six renewable energy projects. The contracts were submitted to MDPU for approval on September 20, 2013. No deliveries have occurred to date under these contracts. Fitchburg will recover its costs under these contracts through a regulatory approved cost tracker rate mechanism. On August 6, 2012, the Governor of Massachusetts also signed into law “An Act Relative to the Emergency Response of Public Utilities”, which establishes a new storm trust fund and requires that penalties levied by the MDPU for violations of its emergency preparedness rules be credited to customers. Unitil Corporation – FERC Audit – On November 3, 2011, the FERC commenced an audit of Unitil Corporation, including its associated service company and its electric and natural gas distribution companies. Among other requirements, the audit evaluated the Company’s compliance with: i) cross-subsidization restrictions on affiliate transactions; ii) regulations under the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and the iii) uniform system of accounts for centralized service companies. The final audit report was issued on February 28, 2013 and the Company submitted its plan to address the audit findings and implement the audit recommendations on March 29, 2013. The Company submitted its quarterly progress update on the implementation of the audit recommendations on April 30, 2013. On June 5, 2013 the FERC advised the Company that the audit is complete; no further action is required by the Company. The audit findings did not have an impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. Legal Proceedings The Company is involved in legal and administrative proceedings and claims of various types, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes, based upon information furnished by counsel and others, that the ultimate resolution of these claims will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position. In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil Corporation’s (the “Company”) Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company (Fitchburg), in Massachusetts’ Worcester Superior Court (the “Court”), (captioned Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg’s service territory in December, 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 ice storm. On September 4, 2009, the Court issued its order on the Company’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part. Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case as a class action. On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying plaintiffs’ motion to certify the case as a class action. As a result of this decision, the lawsuit would now proceed with only the twelve named plaintiffs seeking damages; however, the plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”). The SJC has accepted the matter for review. The Town of Lunenburg has also filed a separate action in Massachusetts Worcester County Superior Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The parties to this action have agreed to put this matter on hold pending the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Bellermann. The Company continues to believe these suits are without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously.

NOTE 6 – REGULATORY MATTERS

UNITIL’S REGULATORY MATTERS ARE DESCRIBED IN NOTE 5 TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN ITEM 8 OF PART II OF UNITIL CORPORATION’S FORM 10-K FOR DECEMBER 31, 2012 AS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON JANUARY 30, 2013.

Regulatory Matters

Granite State – Base Rates – Granite State has in place a FERC approved rate settlement agreement under which it is permitted each June to file a limited Section 4 rate case that includes incremental annual rate adjustments to recover the revenue requirements for certain specified future capital cost additions to gas transmission plant projects. In June 2013, Granite State submitted to the FERC its latest incremental annual rate adjustment, in the amount of $0.4 million, with rates effective August 1, 2013. The FERC approved the increase on July 30, 2013.

Unitil Energy – Base Rates – On April 26, 2011, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (NHPUC) approved a rate settlement with a permanent increase of $5.2 million in annual revenue effective July 1, 2010, and an additional increase of $5.0 million in annual revenue effective May 1, 2011. The settlement extends through May 1, 2016 and provides for a long-term rate plan and earnings sharing mechanism, with step increases in annual revenue on May 1, 2012, May 1, 2013 and May 1, 2014, to support Unitil Energy’s continued capital improvements to its distribution system. Unitil Energy’s first step increase was approved as filed, effective May 1, 2012. Unitil Energy’s second step increase of $2.8 million went into effect on May 1, 2013, which included rate increases to recover capital improvements, increased spending for its vegetation management and reliability enhancement programs and an increase in its storm reserve fund.

Northern Utilities – Base Rates Filed – In April 2013, Northern Utilities filed separate rate cases, with the NHPUC and MPUC, respectively, requesting approval to increase its natural gas distribution base rates. In New Hampshire, the Company requested an increase of $5.2 million in gas distribution base revenue or approximately 9.4 percent over test year operating revenue. In Maine, the Company requested an increase of $4.6 million in gas distribution base revenue or approximately 6.3 percent over test year operating revenue. Both filings include proposed multi-year rate plans that include cost tracking mechanisms to recover future capital costs associated with Northern Utilities’ infrastructure replacements and safety and reliability improvements to the natural gas distribution system. In New Hampshire Northern Utilities has been authorized to implement temporary rates to collect a $2.5 million increase (annualized) in gas distribution revenue, effective July 1, 2013 and the Company expects a final rate order from the NHPUC in the first half of 2014. Once permanent rates are approved by the NHPUC, they will be reconciled to the date temporary rates were established, July 1, 2013. In Maine, the Company is currently in settlement discussions with the Staff of the MPUC and the Maine Office of Public Advocate to resolve any remaining outstanding issues. Any settlement agreement among the parties in the Northern Utilities Maine rate case is subject to approval by the MPUC. The Company expects a final rate order from the MPUC by the end of 2013.

Fitchburg – Electric Base Rates Filed – In July 2013, Fitchburg filed a rate case with the MDPU requesting approval to increase its electric distribution rates. The Company requested an increase of $6.7 million in electric base revenue or approximately 11.5 percent over test year operating revenue. Included in the amount of this annual increase is approximately $2.1 million for the recovery over a three year period of extraordinary storm costs incurred by the Company related to two severe storms in 2011, Tropical Storm Irene and the October snowstorm, and Superstorm Sandy in 2012. The filing includes a proposed modified revenue decoupling mechanism by means of either a capital cost adjustment mechanism or a multi-year rate plan featuring a revenue cap index. The filing also includes a proposed major storm reserve fund to address the costs of future major storms by collecting $2.8 million per year through a reconciling storm recovery adjustment factor beginning January 1, 2015. The rate case filing is subject to regulatory review and approval with final rate orders expected in the second quarter of 2014.

Major Storms – Fitchburg and Unitil Energy

Superstorm Sandy – On October 29-30, 2012, a severe storm struck the Eastern seaboard of the United States, causing extensive damage to electric facilities and loss of service to significant numbers of customers of several utilities. Fitchburg and Unitil Energy incurred approximately $1.1 million and $2.7 million, respectively, in costs for the repair and replacement of electric distribution systems damaged during the storm, including $0.3 million and $0.4 million related to capital construction for Fitchburg and Unitil Energy, respectively. The amount and timing of the cost recovery of these storm restoration expenditures for Fitchburg will be determined in its rate case. The cost recovery for Unitil Energy has been approved as discussed below. The Company does not believe these storm restoration expenditures and the timing of cost recovery will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Fitchburg – Storm Cost Deferral – On May 1, 2012 the MDPU approved Fitchburg’s request to defer $4.3 million of storm costs associated with two severe storms which occurred in 2011, and Fitchburg is seeking recovery of these costs in the electric rate case it filed in July 2013.

Unitil Energy – 2012 Storm Costs – On April 25, 2013, the NHPUC approved the recovery of $2.3 million of costs to repair damage to Unitil Energy’s electrical system resulting from Superstorm Sandy over a five-year period, with carrying charges at the Company’s long-term cost of debt, net of deferred taxes, or 4.52%, applied to the uncollected balance through the recovery period.

Fitchburg – Electric Operations – On November 30, 2012, Fitchburg submitted its annual reconciliation of costs and revenues for transition and transmission under its restructuring plan. The filing also includes the reconciliation of costs and revenues for a number of other surcharges and cost factors which are subject to review and approval by the MDPU. All of the rates were approved effective January 1, 2013 for billing purposes, subject to reconciliation pending investigation by the MDPU. The reconciliation of costs and revenues for transition and transmission was approved on May 14, 2013. The reconciliation of costs and revenues for other surcharge and cost factors remains pending.

Fitchburg – Service Quality – On March 1, 2013, Fitchburg submitted its 2012 Service Quality Reports for both its gas and electric divisions. Fitchburg reported that it met or exceeded its benchmarks for service quality performance in all metrics for both its gas and electric divisions. On March 29, 2013, the MDPU issued its order approving the 2011 Service Quality Report for Fitchburg’s gas division. The 2010-2012 Service Quality reports for Fitchburg’s electric division remain pending.

On December 11, 2012, the MDPU opened an investigation into the service quality provided by the gas and electric distribution companies in Massachusetts and the Service Quality guidelines currently in effect. The MDPU investigation will review existing and potential new reliability, safety, and customer satisfaction metrics; potential penalties for downed wire response; potential clean energy metrics; penalty provisions, including penalty offsets for superior performance in other metrics for poor performance on a different metric; and review of historic data for use in establishing service quality benchmarks. Fitchburg has been an active participant in this docket, which remains pending.

Fitchburg – Other – On February 5, 2013, there was a natural gas explosion in the city of Fitchburg, Massachusetts in an area served by Fitchburg’s gas division resulting in property damage to a number of commercial and residential properties. The MDPU, pursuant to its authority under state and federal law, has commenced an investigation of the incident, with which Fitchburg is cooperating. The Company does not believe this incident or investigation will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

On February 11, 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued its decision in the Attorney General’s (AG) appeal of the MDPU orders relating to Fitchburg’s recovery of bad debt expense. The SJC agreed with the AG that the MDPU was required to hold hearings regarding changes in Fitchburg’s tariff and rates, and on that basis vacated the MDPU orders. The SJC, however, declined to rule on an appropriate remedy, and remanded the cases back to the MDPU for consideration of that issue. In the Company’s August 1, 2011 rate decision, the MDPU held that the approval of dollar for dollar collection of supply-related bad debt in the Company’s rate cases in 2006 (gas) and 2007 (electric) satisfied the requirement for a hearing ordered by the SJC. The MDPU has opened a docket to address the amounts collected by Fitchburg between the time the MDPU first approved dollar for dollar collection of the Company’s bad debt, and the rate decisions in 2006 and 2007. Briefs were filed in June 2013. This matter remains pending before the MDPU.

On July 2, 2008, the Governor of Massachusetts signed into law “The Green Communities Act” (the GC Act), an energy policy statute designed to substantially increase energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy resources in Massachusetts. The GC Act provides for utilities to recover in rates the incremental costs associated with its various mandated programs. Several regulatory proceedings have been initiated to implement various provisions of the GC Act, including provisions for each distribution company to file enhanced three-year energy efficiency investment plans, plans to establish smart grid pilot programs, proposals to purchase long-term contracts for renewable energy, special tariffs to allow the net metering of customer-owned renewable generation, and terms and conditions for purchasing supplier receivables. Fitchburg’s first two three-year energy efficiency investment plans, plans to establish smart grid pilot programs, net metering tariffs and proposals to purchase long-term contracts for renewable energy have been approved by the MDPU. Terms and conditions for purchasing supplier receivables are under review in a separately designated docket.

On August 3, 2012, the Governor of Massachusetts signed into law “An Act Relative to Competitively Priced Electricity in the Commonwealth”, which both increases electric distribution companies’ obligations to purchase renewable energy resources and the availability of net metering. This act also includes changes to the MDPU’s ratemaking procedures and authority for reviewing mergers and acquisitions for electric and gas distribution companies. With these changes, electric distribution companies are required to file rate schedules every five years, and gas distribution companies every ten years. The MDPU has also opened a proceeding, as mandated by the act, to establish a cost-based rate design for costs that are currently recovered from distribution customers through a reconciling factor. Fitchburg has participated with the other electric utilities in Massachusetts and contracted for its pro-rata share of six renewable energy projects. The contracts were submitted to MDPU for approval on September 20, 2013. No deliveries have occurred to date under these contracts. Fitchburg will recover its costs under these contracts through a regulatory approved cost tracker rate mechanism.

On August 6, 2012, the Governor of Massachusetts also signed into law “An Act Relative to the Emergency Response of Public Utilities”, which establishes a new storm trust fund and requires that penalties levied by the MDPU for violations of its emergency preparedness rules be credited to customers.

Unitil Corporation – FERC Audit – On November 3, 2011, the FERC commenced an audit of Unitil Corporation, including its associated service company and its electric and natural gas distribution companies. Among other requirements, the audit evaluated the Company’s compliance with: i) cross-subsidization restrictions on affiliate transactions; ii) regulations under the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and the iii) uniform system of accounts for centralized service companies. The final audit report was issued on February 28, 2013 and the Company submitted its plan to address the audit findings and implement the audit recommendations on March 29, 2013. The Company submitted its quarterly progress update on the implementation of the audit recommendations on April 30, 2013. On June 5, 2013 the FERC advised the Company that the audit is complete; no further action is required by the Company. The audit findings did not have an impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in legal and administrative proceedings and claims of various types, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes, based upon information furnished by counsel and others, that the ultimate resolution of these claims will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil Corporation’s (the “Company”) Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company (Fitchburg), in Massachusetts’ Worcester Superior Court (the “Court”), (captioned Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg’s service territory in December, 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 ice storm. On September 4, 2009, the Court issued its order on the Company’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part. Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case as a class action. On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying plaintiffs’ motion to certify the case as a class action. As a result of this decision, the lawsuit would now proceed with only the twelve named plaintiffs seeking damages; however, the plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”). The SJC has accepted the matter for review. The Town of Lunenburg has also filed a separate action in Massachusetts Worcester County Superior Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The parties to this action have agreed to put this matter on hold pending the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Bellermann. The Company continues to believe these suits are without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously.