Back to GetFilings.com

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Form 10-Q

       Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.     Yes þ          No o

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).     Yes þ          No o

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13, or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.     Yes þ          No o

        20,625,766 shares of AMERCO Common Stock, $0.25 par value were outstanding at February 13, 2004.

       5,385 shares of U-Haul International, Inc. Common Stock, $0.01 par value, were outstanding at February 13, 2004.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION

1

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

AMERCO (Debtor in Possession) AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES AND

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(1)	SAC Holdings property, plant and equipment totaled $991.5 million and $1,015.5 million before eliminations, inter-company eliminations were $258.2 million and $258.2 million at December 31, 2003 and March 31, 2003 respectively.

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

2

AMERCO (Debtor in Possession) AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES AND

*	2002 amounts revised to reflect the corrected number of weighted average common shares outstanding.

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

3

AMERCO (Debtor in Possession) AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES AND

*	2002 amounts revised to reflect the corrected number of weighted average common shares outstanding.

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

4

AMERCO (Debtor in Possession) AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES AND

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

5

AMERCO (Debtor in Possession) AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES AND

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

6

AMERCO (Debtor in Possession) AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES AND

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

7

AMERCO (Debtor in Possession) AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES AND

      On June 20, 2003, AMERCO (the “Debtor”) filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy laws in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada. On August 13, 2003, the company’s wholly owned subsidiary, Amerco Real Estate Company, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy laws in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada. Under Chapter 11, certain claims against the Debtor in existence prior to the filing of the petition for relief under the federal bankruptcy laws are stayed while the Debtor continues business operations as debtor-in-possession. These claims are reflected in the December 31, 2003, balance sheet as “liabilities subject to compromise.” Additional claims (liabilities subject to compromise) may arise subsequent to the filing date resulting from rejection of executory contracts, including leases, and from the determination by the court (or agreed to by parties in interest) of allowed claims for contingencies and other disputed amounts. Claims secured against the Debtor’s assets (“secured claims”) also are stayed, although the holders of such claims have the right to move the court for relief from the stay. Secured claims are secured primarily by liens of the Debtor’s property, plant and equipment.

      On October 6, 2003, AMERCO filed its Plan of Reorganization and Disclosure Statement with the Bankruptcy Court. On November 26, 2003, AMERCO filed an Amended Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). On December 12, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court approved AMERCO’s Disclosure Statement. On February 2, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan contingent upon completion of documentation and agreements acceptable to the involved parties and the submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and a confirmation order acceptable to all involved parties. AMERCO expects that by fiscal year end (i) it will satisfy the above contingencies and (ii) the Bankruptcy Court will execute a confirmation order. The confirmation order will become final if it is not appealed within ten days after entry and AMERCO intends to proceed to implement the Plan and emerge from bankruptcy as soon as possible thereafter.

2.     Organization and Principles of Consolidation

      AMERCO, a Nevada corporation (“AMERCO”), is the holding company for U-Haul International, Inc. (“U-Haul”), Amerco Real Estate Company (“Real Estate”), Republic Western Insurance Company (“RepWest”) and Oxford Life Insurance Company (“Oxford”). Throughout this Form 10-Q, unless the context otherwise requires, the term “Company” refers to AMERCO and all of its legal subsidiaries. The Company has four industry segments represented by Moving and Storage Operations (U-Haul), Real Estate, Property and Casualty Insurance (RepWest) and Life Insurance (Oxford).

      SAC Holding Corporation and SAC Holding Corporation II, Nevada corporations (collectively, “SAC Holdings”), are the holding companies for several individual corporations that own self-storage properties managed by AMERCO subsidiaries in the ordinary course of business. Mark V. Shoen, a significant shareholder and executive officer of AMERCO, owns all of the equity interest of SAC Holdings.

      The condensed consolidated financial statements presented here include the accounts of AMERCO and its wholly-owned subsidiaries and SAC Holdings and their subsidiaries. All material inter-company accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. AMERCO has made significant loans to SAC Holdings and is entitled to participate in SAC Holdings’ excess cash flow (after senior debt service). All of the equity interest of SAC Holdings is owned by Mark V. Shoen, a significant shareholder and executive officer of

8

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

AMERCO. AMERCO does not have an equity ownership interest in SAC Holdings, except for investments made by RepWest and Oxford in a SAC Holdings-controlled limited partnership which holds Canadian self-storage properties. SAC Holdings are not legal subsidiaries of AMERCO. SAC Holdings’ securitized loan agreements have no guarantees, or triggers that could create a guarantee, from AMERCO. There are no cross default provisions on indebtedness between AMERCO and SAC Holdings. The condensed consolidated financial statements and notes are presented as permitted by Form 10-Q and do not contain certain information included in AMERCO’s annual financial statements and notes. For a more detailed presentation of the accounts and transactions of AMERCO, refer to AMERCO’s Form 10-K.

      The condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2003 and the related condensed consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, and cash flow for the quarters ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 are unaudited. In our opinion, all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of such condensed consolidated financial statements have been included. Such adjustments consist only of normal recurring items. Interim results are not necessarily indicative of results for a full year.

      Revenues, expenses (including professional fees), realized gains and losses, and provisions for losses directly associated with the reorganization and restructuring of the business are reported as part of operating expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets distinguish pre-petition liabilities subject to compromise from both those pre-petition liabilities that are not subject to compromise and from post-petition liabilities. Liabilities subject to compromise are reported at the amounts expected to be allowed, even if they may be settled for lesser amounts.

      The operating results and financial position of RepWest and Oxford have been consolidated on the basis of a calendar year and, accordingly, results from operations for RepWest and Oxford are for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2003 and 2002.

      On June 20, 2003 (the “Petition Date”), AMERCO filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada (the “Bankruptcy Court”) (Case No. 0352103). AMERCO is continuing to manage its properties and operate its businesses as “debtor-in-possession” under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. In general, as debtor-in-possession, AMERCO is authorized under Chapter 11 to continue to operate as an ongoing business, but may not engage in transactions outside the ordinary course of business without the prior approval of the Bankruptcy Court. Specific information pertaining to the bankruptcy filing may be obtained from the website www.amerco.com. The Company’s independent auditors qualified their opinion on the Company’s March 31, 2003 financial statements by including an explanatory paragraph in which they expressed substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments to reflect future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amount and classification of liabilities that might result from these uncertainties.

     Restatement and Reclassifications

      In connection with the audit of the Company’s financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2003, it was determined that there was a need for the Company to record adjustments that resulted in the restatement of the Company’s financial statements, including financial statements for the quarter ended December 31, 2002. The condensed consolidated statement of operations, comprehensive income and cash flow for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 contained in this report have been restated. Loss for the three months ended December 31, 2002 as originally reported was $32.3 million, or $1.73 per basic and diluted share. Restated loss for this period were $45.8 million and $2.45 per basic and diluted share. Net earnings for the nine months

9

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

ended December 31, 2002 as originally reported was $48.8 million, or $1.88 per basic and diluted share. Net earnings (loss) for this period as restated was $0.1 million and ($0.48) per basic and diluted share. The major components of the restatement were related to an adjustment to accrue for fully-developed actuarial estimates of the Company’s insurance reserves and to recognize equity-method losses relating to the Company’s investments in Private Mini Storage Realty, L.P. For a detailed discussion of the adjustments to our financial statements for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2002 and 2001, see footnote 2 to consolidated financial statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K.

      Certain balances as of March 31, 2003 have been reclassified in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements to conform with the current year presentation. These reclassifications had no effect on previously reported net income or stockholders’ equity.

      During fiscal year 2004 U-Haul decreased the estimated useful lives of pick-up trucks and vans. The effect of this change decreased net earnings for the nine-month period and three-month period ended December 31, 2003 by approximately $4,875,000 ($0.24 per share) and $2,600,000 ($0.13 per share), respectively, net of income tax benefit. The adjustment reflects management’s best estimate, based on information available, of the estimated useful lives of these pick-ups and vans.

3.     Investments held by AMERCO’s Insurance Subsidiaries

      A comparison of amortized cost to estimated market value for fixed maturities is as follows:

10

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

4.     Contingent Liabilities and Commitments

      Following is a summary of lease commitments:

      In the normal course of business, AMERCO is a defendant in a number of suits and claims. AMERCO is also a party to several administrative proceedings arising from state and local provisions that regulate the removal and/or clean up of underground fuel storage tanks.

      Compliance with environmental requirements of federal, state and local governments significantly affects Real Estate’s business operations. Among other things, these requirements regulate the discharge of materials into the water, air and land and govern the use and disposal of hazardous substances. Real Estate is aware of issues regarding hazardous substances on some of its properties. Real Estate regularly makes capital and operating expenditures to stay in compliance with environmental laws and has put in place a remedial plan at each site where it believes such a plan is necessary.

      A subsidiary of U-Haul, INW Company (INW), owns one property located within two different state hazardous substance sites in the State of Washington. The sites are referred to as the “Yakima Valley Spray Site” and the “Yakima Railroad Area.” INW has been named as a “potentially liable party” under state law with respect to this property as it relates to both sites. As a result of the cleanup costs of approximately $5.0 million required by the State of Washington, INW filed for reorganization under federal bankruptcy laws in May of 2001. The potential liability to INW could be in the range of $750,000 to $1.25 million.

      Based upon the information currently available, compliance with the environmental laws and the costs of investigation and cleanup of known hazardous waste sites are not expected to have a material adverse affect on the Company’s financial position or operating results.

      In connection with the resolution of litigation with certain members of the Shoen family and their corporations, AMERCO has deducted for income tax purposes approximately $372.0 million of the payments made to plaintiffs in a lawsuit. While AMERCO believes that such income tax deductions are appropriate, there can be no assurance that such deductions ultimately will be allowed in full. The IRS has proposed adjustments to the Company’s 1997 and 1996 tax returns. Nearly all of the adjustments are attributable to denials of deductions claimed for certain payments made in connection with this litigation. We believe these income tax deductions are appropriate and are vigorously contesting the IRS adjustments. No additional taxes have been provided in the accompanying financial statements, as management believes that none will result.

      On July 20, 2000, Charles Kocher (“Kocher”) filed suit in Wetzel County, West Virginia, Civil Action No. 00-C-51-K, entitled Charles Kocher v. Oxford Life Insurance Co. (“Oxford”) seeking compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract, bad faith and unfair claims settlement practices arising from an alleged failure of Oxford to properly and timely pay a claim under a disability and dismemberment policy. On March 22, 2002, the jury returned a verdict of $5 million in compensatory damages and $34 million in punitive

11

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

damages. On November 5, 2002, the trial court entered an Order (“Order”) affirming the $39 million jury verdict and denying Oxford’s motion for New Trial Or, in The Alternative, Remittitur. On January 27, 2004, the matter was argued before the West Virginia Supreme Court and taken under advisement. Management does not believe that the Order is sustainable and expects the Order to be overturned by the West Virginia Supreme Court, in part because the jury award has no reasonable nexus to the actual harm suffered by Kocher. The Company has accrued $725,000, which represents management’s best estimate of the costs associated with legal fees to appeal and re-try the case.

      As previously discussed, on June 20, 2003, AMERCO filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. As debtor-in-possession, AMERCO is authorized under Chapter 11 to continue to operate as an ongoing business, but may not engage in transactions outside the ordinary course of business without the prior approval of the Bankruptcy Court. As of the Petition Date, virtually all pending litigation against AMERCO is stayed, and absent further order of the Bankruptcy Court, no party, subject to certain exceptions, may take any action, again subject to certain exceptions, to recover on pre-petition claims against AMERCO. The automatic stay, however, does not apply to AMERCO’s subsidiaries, other than Amerco Real Estate Company, which filed for protection under Chapter 11, on August 13, 2003. On October 6, 2003, AMERCO filed its Plan of Reorganization and Disclosure Statement with the Bankruptcy Court. On November 26, 2003, AMERCO filed an Amended Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). On December 12, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court approved AMERCO’s Disclosure Statement. On February 2, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan contingent upon completion of documentation and agreements acceptable to the involved parties and the submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and a confirmation order acceptable to all involved parties. AMERCO expects by fiscal year end (i) that it will satisfy the above contingencies and (ii) that the Bankruptcy Court will execute a confirmation order. The confirmation order will become final if it is not appealed within ten days after entry and AMERCO intends to proceed to implement the Plan and emerge from bankruptcy as soon as possible thereafter.

      On September 24, 2002, Paul F. Shoen filed a derivative action in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Washoe County, captioned Paul F. Shoen vs. SAC Holding Corporation et al, CV02-05602, seeking damages and equitable relief on behalf of AMERCO from SAC Holdings and certain current and former members of the AMERCO Board of Directors, including Edward J. Shoen, Mark V. Shoen and James P. Shoen. AMERCO is named a nominal defendant for purposes of the derivative action. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, usurpation of corporate opportunities, wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage and unjust enrichment and seeks the unwinding of sales of self-storage properties by subsidiaries of AMERCO to SAC Holdings over the last several years. The complaint seeks a declaration that such transfers are void as well as unspecified damages. On October 28, 2002, AMERCO, the Shoen directors, the non-Shoen directors and SAC Holdings filed Motions to Dismiss the complaint. In addition, on October 28, 2002, Ron Belec filed a derivative action in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Washoe County, captioned Ron Belec vs. William E. Carty, et al, CV 02-06331 and on January 16, 2003, M.S. Management Company, Inc. filed a derivative action in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Washoe County, captioned M.S. Management Company, Inc. vs. William E. Carty, et. al, CV 03-00386. Two additional derivative suits were also filed against these parties. These additional suits are substantially similar to the Paul F. Shoen derivative action. The five suits assert virtually identical claims. In fact, three of the five plaintiffs are parties who are working closely together and chose to file the same claims multiple times. The court consolidated all five complaints before dismissing them on May 8, 2003. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. These lawsuits falsely alleged that the AMERCO Board lacked independence. In reaching his decision to dismiss these claims, the court determined that the AMERCO Board of Directors had the requisite level of independence required in order to have these claims resolved by the Board. These cases are stayed pending AMERCO’s emergence from bankruptcy.

12

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

      The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has issued a formal order of investigation to determine whether the Company has violated the Federal securities laws. On January 7, 2003, the Company received the first of several subpoenas issued by the SEC to the Company. SAC Holdings, the Company’s current and former auditors, and others have also received one or more subpoenas relating to this matter. The Company is cooperating fully with the SEC and is facilitating the expeditious review of its financial statements and any other issues that may arise. The Company has produced a large volume of documents and other materials in response to the subpoenas, and the Company is continuing to assemble and produce additional documents and materials for the SEC. Although the Company has fully cooperated with the SEC in this matter and intends to continue to fully cooperate, the SEC may determine that the Company has violated Federal securities laws. We cannot predict when this investigation will be completed or its outcome. If the SEC makes a determination that we have violated Federal securities laws, we may face sanctions, including, but not limited to, significant monetary penalties and injunctive relief.

      AMERCO is a defendant in four putative class action lawsuits. Article Four Trust v. AMERCO, et al., District of Nevada, United States District Court, Case No. CV-N-03-0050-DWH-VPC. Article Four Trust, a purported AMERCO shareholder, commenced this action on January 28, 2003 on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired AMERCO securities between February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002. The Article Four Trust action alleges one claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Mates v. AMERCO, et al., United States District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. CV-N-03-0107. Maxine Mates, an AMERCO shareholder, commenced this putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired AMERCO securities between February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002. The Mates action asserts claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Klug v. AMERCO, et al., United States District Court of Nevada, Case No. CV-S-03-0380. Edward Klug, an AMERCO shareholder, commenced this putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired AMERCO securities between February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002. The Klug action asserts claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. IG Holdings v. AMERCO, et al., United States District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. CV-N-03-0199. IG Holdings, an AMERCO bondholder, commenced this putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, acquired, or traded AMERCO bonds between February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002, alleging claims under section 11 and section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Each of these four securities class actions allege that AMERCO engaged in transactions with SAC entities that falsely improved AMERCO’s financial statements, and that AMERCO failed to disclose the transactions properly. The actions are at a very early stage and have recently been consolidated. As to AMERCO, the actions are stayed pending AMERCO’s emergence from bankruptcy. In addition, by agreement of the parties, AMERCO’s directors who are also named in the lawsuits have an extension to file their responses to the complaints. Management intends to defend these cases vigorously.

      The United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) is presently investigating whether there were violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) involving the AMERCO Employee Savings, Profit Sharing, and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the “Plan”). The DOL has interviewed a number of Company representatives as well as the Plan fiduciaries and has issued a subpoena to the Company and a subpoena to SAC Holdings. One of the issues raised by the DOL relates to the release of shares from the Plan’s loan suspense account. The Company believes that it has resolved this particular issue by contributing additional shares. At the present time, the Company is unable to determine whether the DOL will assert any other claims against the Company, SAC Holdings, or the Plan fiduciaries. The DOL has asked AMERCO and its current directors as well as the Plan Trustees to sign an agreement tolling the statute of limitations with respect to any claims arising out of certain transactions between AMERCO or any affiliate of AMERCO and SAC Holdings or any of its affiliates and such persons have done so. The DOL recently asked

13

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

such parties to extend the tolling agreement and they have done so. The DOL has not advised the Company that it believes that any other violations of ERISA have in fact occurred. Instead, the DOL is simply investigating potential violations. The Company intends to defend its position. The Company also intends to take any corrective action that may be needed in light of the DOL’s ultimate findings. Although the Company has fully cooperated with the DOL in this matter and intends to continue to fully cooperate, the DOL may determine that the Company has violated ERISA. In that event, the Company may face sanctions, including, but not limited to, significant monetary penalties and injunctive relief.

5.     New Accounting Standards

      Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 143 (“SFAS 143”), Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, requires recognition of the fair value of liabilities associated with the retirement of long-lived assets when a legal obligation to incur such costs arises as a result of the acquisition, construction, development and/or the normal operation of a long-lived asset. Upon recognition of the liability, a corresponding asset is recorded at present value and accreted over the life of the asset and depreciated over the remaining life of the long-lived asset. SFAS 143 defines a legal obligation as one that a party is required to settle as a result of an existing or enacted law, statute, ordinance, or written or oral contract or by legal construction of a contract under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. SFAS 143 is effective for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2002. We adopted this statement effective April 1, 2003, and it did not affect our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

      In April 2002, the FASB adopted SFAS No. 145 (“SFAS 145”), Rescission of No. 4, (Reporting Gains and Losses from Extinguishment of Debt), No. 44 (Accounting for Intangible Assets of Motor Carriers), No. 64, (Extinguishments of Debt Made to Satisfy Sinking-Fund Requirements), Amendment of FASB Statement No. 13 (Accounting for Leases) and Technical Corrections. This statement eliminates the requirement that gains and losses on debt extinguishment must be classified as extraordinary items in the income statement. Instead, such gains and losses will be classified as extraordinary items only if they are deemed to be unusual and infrequent, in accordance with the current GAAP criteria for extraordinary classification. In addition, SFAS 145 eliminates an inconsistency in lease accounting by requiring that modification of capital leases that result in reclassification as operating leases be accounted for consistent with sale-leaseback accounting rules. The statement also contains other non-substantive corrections to authoritative accounting literature. The changes related to debt extinguishment are effective for fiscal years beginning after May 15, 2002. We previously reclassified all extraordinary loss on debt extinguishment to interest expense. The changes related to lease accounting will be effective for transactions occurring after May 15, 2002. We adopted the lease accounting provisions effective May 16, 2002 and it did not affect our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

      In September 2002, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 146, (“SFAS 146”) Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities, which addresses accounting for restructuring and similar costs. SFAS 146 supersedes previous accounting guidance, principally Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 94-3. SFAS 146 requires that the liability for costs associated with an exit or disposal activity be recognized when the liability is incurred. Under EITF No. 94-3, a liability for an exit cost was recognized at the date of a company’s commitment to an exit plan. SFAS 146 also establishes that the liability should initially be measured and recorded at fair value. Accordingly, SFAS 146 may affect the timing of recognizing future restructuring costs as well as the amount recognized. The provisions of this Statement are effective for exit or disposal activities that are initiated after December 31, 2002. We adopted the Statement effective January 1, 2003 and it did not affect our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

      In November 2002, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 45 (“FIN 45”), Guarantor’s Accounting for Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others, an

14

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

interpretation of FASB Statements No. 5, 57, and 107 and rescission of FASB Interpretation No. 34, Disclosure of Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others. FIN 45 clarifies the requirements for a guarantor’s accounting for and disclosure of certain guarantees issued and outstanding. It also requires a guarantor to recognize, at the inception of a guarantee, a liability for the fair value of the obligation undertaken in issuing the guarantee. This Interpretation also incorporates without reconsideration the guidance in FASB Interpretation No. 34, which was superseded. As a result of FIN 45, the Company has recorded a $125 million liability at March 31, 2003 and December 31, 2003, which is management’s estimate of the liability associated with the guarantee of the indebtedness of an affiliate of Private Mini Storage Realty, L. P. which was entered into in February 2003.

      In December 2002, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 148 (“SFAS 148”), “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation -Transition and Disclosure”, which amends Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (“SFAS 123”), “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation”. SFAS 148 provides alternative methods of transition for a voluntary change to the fair value based method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation. In addition, SFAS 148 amends the disclosure requirement of SFAS 123 to require more prominent and more frequent disclosures in financial statements of the effects of stock-based compensation. The transition guidance and annual disclosure provisions of SFAS 148 are effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2002. The interim disclosure provisions are effective for financial reports containing condensed financial statements for interim periods beginning after December 15, 2002. We have adopted this statement and it had no impact on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet or results of operations.

      In April 2003, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 149, (“SFAS 149”) “Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.” This Statement amends and clarifies the accounting for derivative instruments, including certain derivative instruments embedded in other contracts and for hedging activities under SFAS 133. In particular, SFAS 149 (1) clarifies under what circumstances a contract with an initial net investment meets the characteristic of a derivative as discussed in SFAS 133, (2) clarifies when a derivative contains a financing component, (3) amends the definition of an underlying derivative to conform it to the language used in FIN 45, and (4) amends certain other existing pronouncements. SFAS 149 is generally effective for contracts entered into or modified after June 30, 2003. The Company does not believe the adoption of SFAS No. 149 will have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

      In May 2003, the FASB issued SFAS 150 (“SFAS 150”), Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity. This Statement establishes standards for classifying and measuring as liabilities certain financial instruments that embody obligations of the issuer and have characteristics of both liabilities and equity. SFAS No. 150 is effective at the beginning of the first interim period beginning after June 15, 2003; including all financial instruments created or modified after May 31, 2003. SFAS 150 currently has no impact on the Company.

      In January 2003, the FASB issued Interpretation Number 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (“FIN 46”), an interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51. FIN 46 requires that variable interest entities be consolidated by a company if that company absorbs a majority of the entity’s expected losses, receives a majority of its expected residual returns, or both, as a result of holding a variable interest. In December 2003, the FASB issued FIN 46R, which reflected certain amendments to the standard. The provisions of FIN 46, as revised, are effective for the first interim or annual period ending after March 15, 2004 when certain conditions are met by a variable interest entity. At this time an evaluation is being conducted to determine whether the adoption of FIN 46 will require that we consolidate SAC Holdings’ investment in Private Mini.

15

AMERCO (Debtor in Possession) AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES AND

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)