| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1252"?> |
<InstanceReport xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"> |
| <Version> 1.0.0.3 </Version> |
| <hasSegments> false </hasSegments> |
| <ReportName> Contingencies and Commitments </ReportName> |
| <RoundingOption/> |
| <Columns> |
| | <Column> |
| | | <LabelColumn> false </LabelColumn> |
| | | <Id> 1 </Id> |
| | | <Labels> |
| <Label Id="1" Label="12 Months Ended"/> |
| <Label Id="2" Label="Dec. 31, 2009"/> |
| </Labels> |
| | | <CurrencySymbol> $ </CurrencySymbol> |
| | | <hasSegments> false </hasSegments> |
| | | <hasScenarios> false </hasScenarios> |
| | | <Segments/> |
| | | <Scenarios/> |
| | | <Units> |
| <Unit> |
| <UnitID> Shares </UnitID> |
| <UnitType> Standard </UnitType> |
| <StandardMeasure> |
| <MeasureSchema> http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance </MeasureSchema> |
| <MeasureValue> shares </MeasureValue> |
| <MeasureNamespace> xbrli </MeasureNamespace> |
| </StandardMeasure> |
| <Scale> 0 </Scale> |
| </Unit> |
| <Unit> |
| <UnitID> USD </UnitID> |
| <UnitType> Standard </UnitType> |
| <StandardMeasure> |
| <MeasureSchema> http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 </MeasureSchema> |
| <MeasureValue> USD </MeasureValue> |
| <MeasureNamespace> iso4217 </MeasureNamespace> |
| </StandardMeasure> |
| <Scale> 0 </Scale> |
| </Unit> |
| </Units> |
| | | </Column> |
| | </Columns> |
| <Rows> |
| | <Row> |
| | | <Id> 2 </Id> |
| | | <Label> Contingencies and Commitments [Abstract] </Label> |
| | | <Level> 0 </Level> |
| | | <ElementName> us-gaap_LossContingencyAbstract </ElementName> |
| | | <ElementPrefix> us-gaap </ElementPrefix> |
| | | <IsBaseElement> true </IsBaseElement> |
| | | <BalanceType> na </BalanceType> |
| | | <PeriodType> duration </PeriodType> |
| | | <ElementDataType> string </ElementDataType> |
| | | <ShortDefinition> No definition available. </ShortDefinition> |
| | | <IsReportTitle> false </IsReportTitle> |
| | | <IsSegmentTitle> false </IsSegmentTitle> |
| | | <IsSubReportEnd> false </IsSubReportEnd> |
| | | <IsCalendarTitle> false </IsCalendarTitle> |
| | | <IsTuple> false </IsTuple> |
| | | <IsAbstractGroupTitle> true </IsAbstractGroupTitle> |
| | | <IsBeginningBalance> false </IsBeginningBalance> |
| | | <IsEndingBalance> false </IsEndingBalance> |
| | | <IsEPS> false </IsEPS> |
| | | <Cells> |
| <Cell> |
| <Id> 1 </Id> |
| <ShowCurrencySymbol> false </ShowCurrencySymbol> |
| <IsNumeric> false </IsNumeric> |
| <NumericAmount> 0 </NumericAmount> |
| <RoundedNumericAmount> 0 </RoundedNumericAmount> |
| <NonNumbericText/> |
| <NonNumericTextHeader/> |
| <FootnoteIndexer/> |
| <hasSegments> false </hasSegments> |
| <hasScenarios> false </hasScenarios> |
| </Cell> |
| </Cells> |
| | | <ElementDefenition> No definition available. </ElementDefenition> |
| | | <IsTotalLabel> false </IsTotalLabel> |
| | | </Row> |
| | <Row> |
| | | <Id> 3 </Id> |
| | | <Label> Contingencies and Commitments </Label> |
| | | <Level> 1 </Level> |
| | | <ElementName> us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock </ElementName> |
| | | <ElementPrefix> us-gaap </ElementPrefix> |
| | | <IsBaseElement> true </IsBaseElement> |
| | | <BalanceType> na </BalanceType> |
| | | <PeriodType> duration </PeriodType> |
| | | <ElementDataType> string </ElementDataType> |
| | | <ShortDefinition> No definition available. </ShortDefinition> |
| | | <IsReportTitle> false </IsReportTitle> |
| | | <IsSegmentTitle> false </IsSegmentTitle> |
| | | <IsSubReportEnd> false </IsSubReportEnd> |
| | | <IsCalendarTitle> false </IsCalendarTitle> |
| | | <IsTuple> false </IsTuple> |
| | | <IsAbstractGroupTitle> false </IsAbstractGroupTitle> |
| | | <IsBeginningBalance> false </IsBeginningBalance> |
| | | <IsEndingBalance> false </IsEndingBalance> |
| | | <IsEPS> false </IsEPS> |
| | | <Cells> |
| <Cell> |
| <Id> 1 </Id> |
| <ShowCurrencySymbol> false </ShowCurrencySymbol> |
| <IsNumeric> false </IsNumeric> |
| <NumericAmount> 0 </NumericAmount> |
| <RoundedNumericAmount> 0 </RoundedNumericAmount> |
| <NonNumbericText> <table cellpadding="0" style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td valign="top" align="left" width="4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2"><b>(21) </b></font></td> <td valign="top" align="left"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2"><b>Contingencies and Commitments </b></font></td></tr></table> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 6px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">We are parties in a variety of legal actions arising out of the normal course of business. In particular, such legal actions affect our insurance and reinsurance businesses. Such litigation generally seeks to establish liability directly through insurance contracts or indirectly through reinsurance contracts issued by Berkshire subsidiaries. Plaintiffs occasionally seek punitive or exemplary damages. We do not believe that such normal and routine litigation will have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations. Berkshire and certain of its subsidiaries are also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert or may assert claims or seek to impose fines and penalties in substantial amounts. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px"> </p> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td width="4%"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td valign="top" align="left" width="4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">a)</font></td> <td valign="top" align="left"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2"><i>Governmental Investigations </i></font></td></tr></table> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 6px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">On January 19, 2010, General Re Corporation (“General Re”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (“Berkshire”), entered into settlements with the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) related to the investigations of non-traditional products previously disclosed by Berkshire. Berkshire, General Re and certain of Berkshire’s insurance subsidiaries had been fully cooperating in these investigations since General Re originally received subpoenas in January 2005. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">As part of the settlements, General Re entered into a non-prosecution agreement (the “Non-Prosecution Agreement”) with the DOJ. Under the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, among other things, the DOJ has agreed not to prosecute General Re for any crimes committed by General Re relating to General Re’s previously disclosed transaction with American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”) initially effected in 2000 (the “AIG Transaction”), and General Re has paid a monetary amount equal to $19.5 million to the United States. The Non-Prosecution Agreement provides that General Re’s agreement to pay $60.5 million, exclusive of attorneys’ fees and expenses, through the pending civil class action settlement with AIG shareholders more fully described below, when combined with the amounts to be paid by AIG and the other defendants, satisfies restitution with regard to the AIG Transaction. General Re also has agreed to continue to cooperate fully with the DOJ and the SEC in any ongoing investigations of individuals who may have been involved with the AIG Transaction. The Non-Prosecution Agreement acknowledges that General Re has instituted a number of internal corporate remediation measures applicable to itself and its subsidiaries and, under the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, General Re has agreed to maintain such remediation measures at least during the three-year term thereof. General Re has also agreed to toll the statute of limitations for the term of the Non-Prosecution Agreement on crimes related to the AIG Transaction, and that neither it nor its directors, executive officers or representatives will make, cause others to make or acknowledge as true any statements inconsistent with the agreed statement of facts in the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The Non-Prosecution Agreement provides that if the DOJ determines that General Re or any of its employees, officers or directors have failed to comply with or knowingly violated any of the provisions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, have provided deliberately false, incomplete or misleading information thereunder, or have violated any provision of the federal securities laws during the term of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, General Re shall thereafter be subject to prosecution for crimes committed by and through its employees related to the AIG Transaction. The Non-Prosecution Agreement is also applicable to, and binding upon, certain subsidiaries of General Re. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">In connection with the SEC settlement, which concerns the AIG transaction, as well as a separate series of interrelated transactions with Prudential Financial, Inc. during the period 1997 through 2002, General Re is permanently enjoined from aiding and abetting any violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, and has paid $12.2 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest (the “SEC Amount”) to the SEC. General Re has also agreed not to take any action or make or permit any public statement denying any allegations in the SEC’s complaint or creating the impression that the complaint is without factual basis, although this obligation does not affect General Re’s testimonial obligations or right to take legal or factual positions in litigation or other legal proceedings in which the SEC is not a party. If General Re breaches this agreement, the SEC may petition to vacate the General Re judgment and restore its action against General Re. On February 8, 2010, the judge in this matter issued an order permitting Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, which acquired Prudential Financial and claims to be entitled to the SEC Amount as a result of its own alleged damages, to file a motion to intervene in this matter and requiring the SEC to hold the SEC Amount separate pending a resolution. If the SEC is required to turn over the SEC Amount, or a portion thereof, to Liberty Mutual, General Re could be subject to additional claims for relief from the SEC. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement in Ireland is conducting a preliminary evaluation in relation to Cologne Reinsurance Company (Dublin) Limited (“CRD”), a wholly owned subsidiary of General Re, concerning, in particular, transactions between CRD and AIG. CRD is cooperating fully with this preliminary evaluation. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">Except for the ongoing investigation by the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement in Ireland, we are not aware of any remaining governmental investigations of any of our subsidiaries involving non-traditional products or related transactions. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px"> </p> <table cellpadding="0" style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td width="4%"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td valign="top" align="left" width="4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">b)</font></td> <td valign="top" align="left"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2"><i>Civil Litigation</i> </font></td></tr></table> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 6px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2"><i>Litigation Related to ROA </i></font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 6px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">General Reinsurance Corporation (“General Reinsurance”), a subsidiary of General Re, and several current and former employees, along with numerous other defendants, have been sued in thirteen federal lawsuits involving Reciprocal of America (“ROA”) and related entities. ROA was a Virginia-based reciprocal insurer and reinsurer of physician, hospital and lawyer professional liability risks. Nine are putative class actions initiated by doctors, hospitals and lawyers that purchased insurance through ROA or certain of its Tennessee-based risk retention groups. These complaints seek compensatory, treble, and punitive damages in an amount plaintiffs contend is just and reasonable. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">General Reinsurance is also subject to actions brought by the Virginia Commissioner of Insurance, as Deputy Receiver of ROA, the Tennessee Commissioner of Insurance, as Receiver for purposes of liquidating three Tennessee risk retention groups, a state lawsuit filed by a Missouri-based hospital group that was removed to federal court and another state lawsuit filed by an Alabama doctor that was also removed to federal court. The first of these actions was filed in March 2003 and additional actions were filed in April 2003 through June 2006. In the action filed by the Virginia Commissioner of Insurance, the Commissioner asserts in several of its claims that the alleged damages are believed to exceed $200 million in the aggregate as against all defendants. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">All of these cases are collectively assigned to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee for pretrial proceedings. General Reinsurance filed motions to dismiss all of the claims against it in these cases and, in June 2006, the court granted General Reinsurance’s motion to dismiss the complaints of the Virginia and Tennessee receivers. The court granted the Tennessee receiver leave to amend her complaint, and the Tennessee receiver filed an amended complaint on August 7, 2006. General Reinsurance has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and that motion was granted, with the court dismissing the claim based on an alleged violation of RICO with prejudice and dismissing the state law claims without prejudice. One of the other defendants filed a motion for the court to reconsider the dismissal of the state law claims, requesting that the court retain jurisdiction over them. That motion is pending. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">The Tennessee Receiver subsequently filed three Tennessee state court actions against General Reinsurance, essentially asserting the same state law claims that had been dismissed without prejudice by the Federal court. General Reinsurance removed those actions to Federal court, and the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ultimately transferred these actions to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">The Virginia receiver has moved for reconsideration of the dismissal and for leave to amend his complaint, which was opposed by General Reinsurance. The court affirmed its original ruling but has given the Virginia receiver leave to amend. In September 2006, the court also dismissed the complaint filed by the Missouri-based hospital group. The Missouri-based hospital group has filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal and for leave to file an amended complaint. General Reinsurance has filed its opposition to that motion and awaits a ruling by the court. The court has also not yet ruled on General Reinsurance’s motions to dismiss the complaints of the other plaintiffs. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">General Reinsurance filed a Complaint and a motion in federal court to compel the Tennessee and Virginia receivers to arbitrate their claims against General Reinsurance. The receivers filed motions to dismiss the Complaint. These motions are pending. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">General Reinsurance has reached tentative settlements with the Virginia and Tennessee receivers as well as the Missouri-based hospital group. If those settlements are consummated and approved, all the claims by these entities will be dismissed. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 18px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2"><i>Actions related to AIG </i></font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 6px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">General Reinsurance is a defendant in In re American International Group Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-8141-(LTS), United States District Court, Southern District of New York, a putative class action (the “AIG Securities Litigation”) asserted on behalf of investors who purchased publicly-traded securities of AIG between October 1999 and March 2005. The complaint, originally filed in April 2005, asserts various claims against AIG and certain of its officers, directors, investment banks and other parties, including Ronald Ferguson, Richard Napier and John Houldsworth (whom the Complaint defines, together with General Reinsurance, as the “General Re Defendants”). The Complaint alleges that the General Re Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 in connection with the AIG Transaction. The Complaint seeks damages and other relief in unspecified amounts. General Reinsurance has answered the Complaint, denying liability and asserting various affirmative defenses. Lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on February 20, 2008. Various defendants, including General Reinsurance, have filed oppositions to class certification. On May 29, 2008, General Reinsurance filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on June 30, 2008. The court has not ruled on that motion. The lead plaintiffs and General Reinsurance have reached agreement concerning the terms of a settlement that would resolve all claims against the General Re Defendants in exchange for a payment by General Reinsurance of $72 million, out of which the court may award plaintiffs’ counsel no more than $11.5 million in fees and reimbursement of costs, with the remaining amount of at least $60.5 million to be distributed to purchasers of AIG securities. This settlement remains subject to court approval. On February 22, 2010, the court granted class certification with respect to claims against AIG, and denied class certification with respect to claims against General Reinsurance. The order does not explicitly address whether the court will approve the above-described settlement. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">A member of the putative class in the litigation described in the preceding paragraph has asserted similar claims against General Re and Mr. Ferguson in a separate complaint, Florida State Board of Administration v. General Re Corporation, et al., Case No. 06-CV-3967, United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The claims against General Re and Mr. Ferguson closely resemble those asserted in the class action. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought. General Re has answered the Complaint, denying liability and asserting various affirmative defenses. No trial date has been established. The parties are coordinating discovery and other proceedings among this action, a similar action filed by the same plaintiff against AIG and others, the class action described in the preceding paragraph, and the shareholder derivative actions described in the next two paragraphs. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">On July 27, 2005, General Reinsurance received a Summons and a Verified and Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint in In re American International Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-08406, United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The complaint, brought by several alleged shareholders of AIG, seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief against various officers and directors of AIG as well as a variety of individuals and entities with whom AIG did business, relating to a wide variety of allegedly wrongful practices by AIG. The allegations relating to General Reinsurance focus on the AIG Transaction, and the complaint purports to assert causes of action in connection with that transaction for aiding and abetting other defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty and for unjust enrichment. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages or the nature of any other relief sought. This derivative litigation was stayed by stipulation between the plaintiffs and AIG. That stay remains in place. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">In August 2005, General Reinsurance received a Summons and First Amended Consolidated Shareholders’ Derivative Complaint in In re American International Group, Inc. Consolidated Derivative Litigation, Case No. 769-N, Delaware Chancery Court. In June 2007, AIG filed an Amended Complaint in the Delaware Derivative Litigation asserting claims against two of its former officers, but not against General Reinsurance. On September 28, 2007, AIG and the shareholder plaintiffs filed a Second Combined Amended Complaint, in which AIG asserted claims against certain of its former officers and the shareholder plaintiffs asserted claims against a number of other defendants, including General Reinsurance and General Re. The claims asserted in the Delaware complaint are substantially similar to those asserted in the New York derivative complaint, except that the Delaware complaint makes clear that the plaintiffs are asserting claims against both General Reinsurance and General Re. General Reinsurance and General Re filed a motion to dismiss on November 30, 2007. On July 13, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court entered judgment dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted against General Re, General Reinsurance and certain other defendants in the matter. Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment. General Re and General Reinsurance are vigorously opposing that appeal. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 18px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2"><i>FAI/HIH Matter </i></font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 6px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">In December 2003, the Liquidators of both FAI Insurance Limited (“FAI”) and HIH Insurance Limited (“HIH”) advised General Reinsurance Australia Limited (“GRA”) and Kölnische Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG (“Cologne Re”) that they intended to assert claims arising from insurance transactions GRA entered into with FAI in May and June 1998. In August 2004, the Liquidators filed claims in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in order to avoid the expiration of a statute of limitations for certain plaintiffs. The focus of the Liquidators’ allegations against GRA and Cologne Re are the 1998 transactions GRA entered into with FAI (which was acquired by HIH in 1999). The Liquidators contend, among other things, that GRA and Cologne Re engaged in deceptive conduct that assisted FAI in improperly accounting for such transactions as reinsurance, and that such deception led to HIH’s acquisition of FAI and caused various losses to FAI and HIH. The Liquidator of HIH served its Complaint on GRA and Cologne Re in June 2006 and discovery has been ongoing. The FAI Liquidator dismissed his complaint against GRA and Cologne Re. GRA and Cologne Re have entered into a settlement in principle with the HIH Liquidator, which remains subject to court approval. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">We have established reserves for certain of the legal proceedings discussed above where we have concluded that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For other legal proceedings discussed above, either we have determined that an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but we are unable to estimate a range of possible losses or we are unable to predict the outcome of the matter. We believe that any liability that may arise as a result of current pending civil litigation, including the matters discussed above, will not have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 18px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px"> </p> <table cellpadding="0" style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td width="4%"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td valign="top" align="left" width="4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">c)</font></td> <td valign="top" align="left"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2"><i>Commitments </i></font></td></tr></table> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 6px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">We lease certain manufacturing, warehouse, retail and office facilities as well as certain equipment. Rent expense for all leases was $701 million in 2009, $725 million in 2008 and $648 million in 2007. Minimum rental payments for operating leases having initial or remaining non-cancelable terms in excess of one year are as follows. Amounts are in millions. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px"> </p> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" align="center" border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td/> <td valign="bottom" width="10%"/> <td/> <td/> <td valign="bottom" width="10%"/> <td/> <td/> <td valign="bottom" width="10%"/> <td/> <td/> <td valign="bottom" width="10%"/> <td/> <td/> <td valign="bottom" width="10%"/> <td/> <td/> <td valign="bottom" width="10%"/> <td/> <td/></tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap"> <p style="WIDTH: 16pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="1"><b>2010</b></font></p></td> <td valign="bottom"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" valign="bottom" align="center" colspan="2"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="1"><b>2011</b></font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" valign="bottom" align="center" colspan="2"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="1"><b>2012</b></font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" valign="bottom" align="center" colspan="2"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="1"><b>2013</b></font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" valign="bottom" align="center" colspan="2"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="1"><b>2014</b></font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" valign="bottom" align="center" colspan="2"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="1"><b>After<br/> 2014</b></font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" valign="bottom" align="center" colspan="2"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="1"><b>Total</b></font></td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"> <td valign="top"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">$577</font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">$</font></td> <td valign="bottom" align="right"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">461</font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">$</font></td> <td valign="bottom" align="right"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">379</font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">$</font></td> <td valign="bottom" align="right"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">290</font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">$</font></td> <td valign="bottom" align="right"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">230</font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">$</font></td> <td valign="bottom" align="right"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">1,049</font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font size="1"> </font></td> <td valign="bottom"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">$</font></td> <td valign="bottom" align="right"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">2,986</font></td></tr></table> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">Several of our subsidiaries have made long-term commitments to purchase goods and services used in their businesses. The most significant of these relate to MidAmerican’s commitments to purchase coal, electricity and natural gas. As of December 31, 2009, commitments under all such subsidiary arrangements were approximately $5.6 billion in 2010, $1.9 billion in 2011, $1.8 billion in 2012, $1.7 billion in 2013, $1.7 billion in 2014 and $4.0 billion after 2014. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">We are obligated to acquire the remaining 36% equity interests of Marmon in stages between 2011 and 2014. Based upon the initial purchase price, the cost to Berkshire to acquire such interests would be approximately $2.7 billion. However, the consideration ultimately payable is contingent upon future operating results of Marmon and the per share cost could be greater than or less than the initial per share price. </font></p> <p style="MARGIN-TOP: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: 4%"><font style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman" size="2">Pursuant to the terms of shareholder agreements with noncontrolling shareholders in certain of our other less than wholly-owned subsidiaries, we may be obligated to acquire their equity ownership interests. The consideration payable for such interests is generally based on the fair value of the subsidiary. If we acquired all such outstanding noncontrolling interests holdings as of December 31, 2009, the cost would have been approximately $3 billion. However, the timing and the amount of any such future payments that might be required are contingent on future actions of the noncontrolling owners and future operating results of the related subsidiaries.</font></p> </NonNumbericText> |
| <NonNumericTextHeader> (21) Contingencies and Commitments We are parties in a variety of legal actions arising out of the normal course of business. In particular, such legal </NonNumericTextHeader> |
| <FootnoteIndexer/> |
| <hasSegments> false </hasSegments> |
| <hasScenarios> false </hasScenarios> |
| </Cell> |
| </Cells> |
| | | <ElementDefenition> No definition available. </ElementDefenition> |
| | | <ElementReferences> No authoritative reference available. </ElementReferences> |
| | | <IsTotalLabel> false </IsTotalLabel> |
| | | </Row> |
| | </Rows> |
| <Footnotes/> |
| <ComparabilityReport> false </ComparabilityReport> |
| <NumberOfCols> 1 </NumberOfCols> |
| <NumberOfRows> 2 </NumberOfRows> |
| <HasScenarios> false </HasScenarios> |
| <MonetaryRoundingLevel> UnKnown </MonetaryRoundingLevel> |
| <SharesRoundingLevel> UnKnown </SharesRoundingLevel> |
| <PerShareRoundingLevel> UnKnown </PerShareRoundingLevel> |
| <HasPureData> false </HasPureData> |
| <SharesShouldBeRounded> true </SharesShouldBeRounded> |
| </InstanceReport> |