Legal Proceedings and Other Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Legal Proceedings and Other Contingencies [Abstract]

Legal Proceedings and Other Contingencies

NOTE 12. Legal Proceedings and Other Contingencies

Various legal actions, claims, assessments and other contingencies arising in the ordinary course of business are pending against GATX and certain of its subsidiaries. These matters are subject to many uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters could ultimately be decided, resolved or settled adversely. For a discussion of these matters, please refer to Note 22 to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as set forth in GATX’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. Except as noted below, there have been no material changes or developments in these matters.

Polskie Koleje Panstwowe S.A. v. DEC sp. z o.o.

In December 2005, Polskie Koleje Panstwowe S.A. (“PKP”) filed a complaint, Polskie Koleje Panstwowe S.A. v. DEC sp. z o.o., in the Regional Court in Warsaw, Poland against DEC sp. z o.o. (“DEC”), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company currently named GATX Rail Poland, sp. z o.o. The complaint alleges that, prior to GATX’s acquisition of DEC in 2001, DEC breached a Conditional Sales Agreement (the “Agreement”) to purchase shares of Kolsped S.A. (“Kolsped”), an indirect subsidiary of PKP. The allegedly breached condition required DEC to obtain a release of Kolsped’s ultimate parent company, PKP, from its guarantee of Kolsped’s promissory note securing a $9.8 million bank loan. Pursuant to an amendment to the Agreement, DEC satisfied this condition by providing PKP with a blank promissory note (the “DEC Note”) and a promissory note declaration which allowed PKP to fill in the DEC Note up to $10 million in the event a demand was made upon it as guarantor of Kolsped’s note to the bank (the “Kolsped Note”). In May 1999, the then current holder of the Kolsped Note, a bank (“Bank”), sued PKP under its guarantee. PKP lost the DEC Note and therefore did not use it to satisfy the guarantee, and the Bank ultimately secured a judgment against PKP in 2002. PKP also failed to notify DEC of the Bank’s lawsuit while the lawsuit was pending.

After exhausting its appeals of the judgment entered against it, PKP filed suit against DEC in December 2005, alleging that DEC failed to fulfill its obligation to release PKP as a guarantor of the Kolsped Note and is purportedly liable to PKP, as a third party beneficiary of the Agreement. DEC filed an answer to the complaint denying the material allegations and raising numerous defenses, including, among others, that: (i) the Agreement did not create an actionable obligation, but rather was a condition precedent to the purchase of shares in Kolsped; (ii) DEC fulfilled that condition by issuing the DEC Note, which was subsequently lost by PKP and redeemed by a Polish court; (iii) PKP was not a third party beneficiary of the Agreement; and (iv) the action is barred by the governing limitations period. The first day of trial was held on March 5, 2008, and the second and final day of trial was held on December 7, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the court issued a written opinion in favor of DEC and rejecting all of PKP’s claims. PKP appealed and, on March 24, 2011, the Court of Appeals rejected the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s ruling. A further appeal by PKP to the Supreme Court is pending.

As of September 30, 2011, PKP’s claims for damages totaled approximately PLN 146.7 million, or $44.4 million, which consists of the principal amount, interest and costs allegedly paid by it to the Bank and statutory interest. Statutory interest would be assessed only if, on remand, the Court of Appeals or the trial court ultimately awards damages to PKP, in which case interest would be assessed on the amount of the award from the date of filing of the claim in December 2005, to the date of the award. The Company has recorded an accrual of $15.5 million for this litigation pending final resolution on appeal. While the ultimate resolution of this matter for an amount in excess of this accrual is possible, the Company believes that any such excess would not be material to its financial position or liquidity. However, such resolution could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year.