Originally Posted by
dgcpaphd
Here is the entire paragraph from which I extracted the previous sentence:
"Legal and Environmental. The Company has certain contingencies resulting from litigation and claims incident to the ordinary course of business. Management believes, after considering a number of factors, including (but not limited to) the information currently available, the views of legal counsel, the nature of contingencies to which the Company is subject and prior experience, that the ultimate disposition of the litigation and claims will not materially affect the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. The Company records liabilities for legal and environmental claims when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. These amounts are recorded based on the Company’s assessments of the likelihood of their eventual disposition."
There is another sentence in the note that should not have been worded as it is. Clearly, the sentence makes the disclosure misleading when it states "- - incident to the ordinary course of business." One can hardly equate that a knowing and intentional breach of lifetime promises made to long-term customers was done "in the ordinary course of business." I guess Ernst and Young might have slipped on helping UA word that note/disclosure.
To anyone interested in reading financial statements, the information, as it pertains to UA, should prove to be sensational reading (just kidding).
-
That's pretty normal language, I have seen it in several annual reports and such. Large corporations are almost always embroiled in litigation of some kind, so it is almost a normal cost of business.
As much as I hate myself for agreeing with you, I am also not sure why UA is litigating this. The only conclusion would be that the P's settlement demands are so unreasonable, that they feel they have to litigate.