1.0.0.3false6140 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIESfalse1$falsefalseu000Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170u001Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0u002Dividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli031pgn_CommitmentsAndContingenciesAbstractpgnfalsenadurationstringNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsetruefalsefalsefalse1falsefalse00falsefalseNo definition available.false42us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationstringNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalse00<div><div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="list" width="100%" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"><tr valign="top"><td style="WIDTH: 30px; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">15.  </font></div></td>
<td width="1367"><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES</font></font></div></td></tr></table></div>
<div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Contingencies and significant changes to the commitments discussed in Note 22 in the 2008 Form 10-K are described below.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="list" width="100%" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"><tr valign="top"><td style="WIDTH: 33px; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">A.  </font></div></td>
<td width="1364"><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS</font></div></td></tr></table></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">As part of our ordinary course of business, we and the Utilities enter into various long- and short-term contracts for fuel requirements at our generating plants. Significant changes from the commitment amounts reported in Note 22A in the 2008 Form 10-K can result from new contracts, changes in existing contracts along with the impact offluctuations in current estimates of future market prices for those contracts that are market price indexed. In most cases, these contracts contain provisions for price adjustments, minimum purchase levels, and other financial commitments. Additional commitments for fuel and related transportation will be required to supply the Utilities’ future needs.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">PEF</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">On May 1, 2009, PEF announced that it expects the construction schedule for Levy to shift. Although the overall schedule impact is not certain at this time, PEF expects the schedule for the commercial operation of Levy to shift later than the 2016 to 2018 timeframe by a minimum of 20 months. We anticipate amending the Levy Engineering,Procurement, and Construction agreement due to the schedule shift but cannot predict the impact, if any, such amendment might have on the project’s total cost. However, consistent with nuclear cost-recovery filings with the FPSC (See Note 4B), PEF anticipates that approximately $1 billion of the construction obligations disclosed in Note 22A in the 2008 Form 10-K for the three-year period following December 31, 2008, could be deferred to later periods as a result of the schedule shift.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">During the second quarter of 2009, PEF entered into conditional agreements for firm pipeline transportation capacity to support PEF’s gas supply needs for the period from April 2011 through March 2036. The total cost to PEF associated with these agreements is estimated to be approximately $281 million. These agreements are subject to severalconditions precedent, including various federal regulatory approvals, the completion and commencement of operation of necessary related interstate natural pipeline system expansions, and other contractual provisions. Due to the conditions of these agreements, the estimated costs associated with these agreements are not currently included in PEF’s fuel and purchased power commitments.</font></div>
<div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br></div><div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="list" width="100%" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"><tr valign="top"><td style="WIDTH: 31px; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">B.  </font></div></td>
<td width="1366"><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">GUARANTEES</font></div></td></tr></table></div>
<div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">As a part of normal business, we enter into various agreements providing future financial or performance assurances to third parties. Such agreements include guarantees, standby letters of credit and surety bonds. At June 30, 2009, we do not believe conditions are likely for significant performance under these guarantees. To the extentliabilities are incurred as a result of the activities covered by the guarantees, such liabilities are included in the accompanying Balance Sheets.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">At June 30, 2009, we have issued guarantees and indemnifications of and for certain asset performance, legal, tax and environmental matters to third parties, including indemnifications made in connection with sales of businesses. Related to the sales of businesses, the latest specified notice period extends until 2013 for the majority of
legal, tax and environmental matters provided for in the indemnification provisions. Indemnifications for the performance of assets extend to 2016. For certain matters for which we receive timely notice, our indemnity obligations may extend beyond the notice period. Certain indemnifications have no limitations as to time or maximum potential future payments. In 2005, PEC entered into an agreement with the joint owner of certain facilities at the Mayo and Roxboro plants to limit their aggregate costs associatedwith capital expenditures to comply with the Clean Smokestacks Act and recognized a liability related to this indemnification (See Note 14B). The terms of the agreement place no limit on PEC’s maximum remaining liability; however PEC estimates its remaining exposure to be $7 million as of June 30, 2009. Pursuant to a September 2008 NCUC order, PEC is including the indemnification costs as allowable costs to be included in rate base for ratemaking purposes (See Note 14B). At June 30, 2009, our estimated maximumexposure for guarantees and indemnifications for which a maximum exposure is determinable was $458 million, including $32 million at PEF. At June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, we have recorded liabilities related to guarantees and indemnifications to third parties of approximately $58 million and $61 million, respectively. These amounts include $7 million and $10 million, respectively, for PEC and $8 million for PEF at </font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"> </font></div>
<div id="PGBRK" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><div id="FTR"><div id="GLFTR" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"> </div></div>
<div id="PN" style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always"><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">59</font></div>
<div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><hr style="COLOR: red" noshade size="2"></div></div><div id="HDR"><div id="GLHDR" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"> </div></div></div>
<div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"> </font></div>
<div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">June 30, 2009, and December 31, 2008. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, PEC accrued approximately $2 million and spent approximately $1 million and $5 million, respectively, that exceeded the joint owner limit. As current estimates change, it is possible that additional losses related to guarantees and indemnifications
to third parties, which could be material, may be recorded in the future.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In addition, the Parent and a subsidiary have issued $300 million of guarantees for certain payments of two wholly owned indirect subsidiaries. See Note 16 for additional information.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="hangingindent" width="100%" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">
<tr valign="top"><td style="WIDTH: 29px"><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">C.</font></div></td><td width="1368"><div align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES</font></div></td></tr></table></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MATTERS</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Utilities entered into contracts with the United States Department of Energy (DOE) under which the DOE agreed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by no later than January 31, 1998. All similarly situated utilities were required to sign the same standard contract.</font></div>
<div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">The DOE failed to begin taking spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. In January 2004, the Utilities filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims against the DOE, claiming that the DOE breached the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel by failing to accept spent nuclear fuel from our various facilitieson or before January 31, 1998. Approximately 60 cases involving the government’s actions in connection with spent nuclear fuel are currently pending in the Court of Federal Claims. The Utilities have asserted nearly $91 million in damages incurred between January 31, 1998 and December 31, 2005; the time period set by the court for damages in this case. The Utilities will be free to file subsequent damage claims as they incur additional costs.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">A trial was held in November 2007 in the United States Court of Federal Claims, and closing arguments were presented on April 4, 2008. On May 19, 2008, the Utilities received a ruling from the Trial Court awarding $83 million in the claim against the DOE for failure to abide by a contract for federal disposition of spent nuclear fuel. TheUnited States Department of Justice requested that the Trial Court reconsider its ruling. The Trial Court did reconsider its ruling and reduced the damage award by an immaterial amount. On August 15, 2008, the Department of Justice appealed the Trial Court’s ruling to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held on May 4, 2009. On July 21, 2009, the D.C. Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the calculation of damages back to the Trial Court but affirmed the portion of damages awarded that were directedto overhead costs and other indirect expenses. The Trial Court has not yet scheduled further proceedings. In the event that the Utilities recover damages in this matter, such recovery is not expected to have a material impact on the Utilities’ results of operations given the anticipated regulatory and accounting treatment. However, the Utilities cannot predict the outcome of this matter.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">SYNTHETIC FUELS MATTERS</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">A number of our subsidiaries and affiliates are parties to two lawsuits arising out of an Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of October 19, 1999, and amended as of August 23, 2000, (the Asset Purchase Agreement) by and among U.S. Global, LLC (Global); Earthco; certain affiliates of Earthco; EFC Synfuel LLC (which was owned indirectly byProgress Energy, Inc.) and certain of its affiliates, including Solid Energy LLC; Solid Fuel LLC; Ceredo Synfuel LLC; Gulf Coast Synfuel LLC (renamed Sandy River Synfuel LLC) (collectively, the Progress Affiliates). Global has asserted (1) that pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, it is entitled to an interest in two synthetic fuels facilities previously owned by the Progress Affiliates and an option to purchase additional interests in the two synthetic fuels facilities, (2) that it is entitled to damagesbecause the Progress Affiliates prohibited it from procuring purchasers for the synthetic fuels facilities and (3) a number of tort claims are related to the contracts.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">The first suit, <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">U.S. Global, LLC v. Progress Energy, Inc. et al.</font> (the Florida Global Case), asserts the above claims in a case filed in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Fla., in March 2003, and requests an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as declaratory relief.The Progress Affiliates have answered the Complaint by generally denying all of Global’s substantive allegations and asserting numerous substantial affirmative defenses.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">The second suit, <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Progress Synfuel Holdings, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Global, LLC</font> (the North Carolina Global Case), was filed by the Progress Affiliates in the Superior Court for Wake County, N.C., seeking declaratory relief consistent with our interpretation of the Asset Purchase Agreement.Global was served with the North Carolina Global Case on April 17, 2003.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div id="PGBRK" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt"><div id="FTR"><div id="GLFTR" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="left"> </div></div>
<div id="PN" style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: always"><div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">60</font></div>
<div style="WIDTH: 100%; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><hr style="COLOR: red" noshade size="2"></div></div><div id="HDR"><div id="GLHDR" style="WIDTH: 100%" align="right"> </div></div></div>
<div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">On May 15, 2003, Global moved to dismiss the North Carolina Global Case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Global. In the alternative, Global requested that the court decline to exercise its discretion to hear the Progress Affiliates’ declaratory judgment action. On August 7, 2003, the Wake County Superior Court denied Global’s motionto dismiss, but stayed the North Carolina Global Case, pending the outcome of the Florida Global Case. The Progress Affiliates appealed the superior court’s order staying the case. By order dated September 7, 2004, the North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the Progress Affiliates’ appeal. Since that time, the parties have been engaged in discovery in the Florida Global Case.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In December 2006, we reached agreement with Global to settle an additional claim in the suit related to amounts due to Global that were placed in escrow pursuant to a defined tax event. Upon the successful resolution of the IRS audit of the Earthco synthetic fuels facilities in 2006, and pursuant to a settlement agreement, the escrow totaling
$42 million at December 31, 2006, was paid to Global in January 2007.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In January 2008, Global agreed to simplify the Florida action by dismissing the tort claims. The Florida Global Case continues now under contract theories alone. The case is scheduled to go to trial in September 2009. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter.</font></div>
<div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">OTHER LITIGATION MATTERS</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">We and our subsidiaries are involved in various litigation matters in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts. Where appropriate, we have made accruals and disclosures to provide for such matters. In the opinion of management, the final disposition of pending litigation would not have a material adverseeffect on our consolidated results of operations or financial position.</font></div></div>15.  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 Contingencies and significant changes to the commitments discussed in Note 22 in the 2008 Form 10-K arefalsefalseNo definition available.No authoritative reference available.falsefalse12falseUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue