Attached files

file filename
EXCEL - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST VFinancial_Report.xls
10-K - FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST Va111512010k.htm
XML - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST VR7.htm
XML - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST VR8.htm
XML - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST VR2.htm
XML - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST VR1.htm
XML - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST VR5.htm
XML - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST VR9.htm
XML - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST VR4.htm
XML - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST VR3.htm
XML - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST VR11.htm
XML - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST VR10.htm
EX-32 - EXHIBIT 32 - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST Vex32.htm
EX-31 - EXHIBIT 31 - RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST Vex31.htm
v2.4.0.6
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
3. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

On March 20, 2007, the Paul Bergeron Trust ("Bergeron") commenced a derivative action on behalf of the Trust, in Suffolk County Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Bergeron joined the Trust and affiliated entities, including the Managing Shareholder and a person who is an officer of the Managing Shareholder, alleging that the allocation of the proceeds from the sale of certain assets of the Trust and affiliated entities was unfair. The derivative plaintiffs later amended the complaint to add a claim that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Trust and The Ridgewood Power Growth Fund ("Growth Fund") by forming affiliated funds to finance the expansion of underlying projects in which each of the Trust and Growth Fund had an interest, rather than using alternative financing, which allegedly resulted in a misallocation of sale proceeds. In December 2011, the defendants agreed to a settlement agreement with the derivative plaintiffs, subject to approval by the Court. The defendants disputed the allegations, asserted that the financing transactions were fair and denied all wrongdoing, but agreed:
 
·
with participation from the Managing Shareholder's primary insurer, Twin City Fire Insurance Company, part of the Hartford Insurance Group, to cause a cash payment to be made to the Trust and Growth Fund, less attorneys' fees awarded by the court to the plaintiffs' attorneys and a reimbursement to the Managing Shareholder as partial reimbursement for operating expenses of the Trust and Growth Fund;
 
·
to assign to the derivative plaintiffs, on behalf of the Trust and Growth Fund, all of the defendants' rights and claims for coverage from, and any claims for damages against, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty"), the Managing Shareholder's excess insurance carrier;
 
·
for the Managing Shareholder and any affiliated entities to waive any rights to any future distributions by the Trust and Growth Fund; and
 
·
for the Managing Shareholder to waive the bulk of the Managing Shareholder's management fees for 2011, as well as all management fees on a going-forward basis, and for the Managing Shareholder to pay the on-going normal and recurring operating expenses of the Trust and Growth Fund until the two funds are liquidated.
In January 2012, the Court gave its final approval of the settlement. The Court did not determine the merits of the plaintiffs' allegations, rendered no verdict and the settlement agreement is not an admission of any of the facts alleged by the plaintiffs or of any wrongdoing by the defendants. In March 2012, the cash portion of the settlement was made to the two funds, allocated in accordance with the agreement, and distributions made to their respective shareholders. The amount of cash distributed to the Trust's shareholders totaled $1,011.

The derivative plaintiffs are responsible for the managing, and ultimate disposition, of any claims against Liberty, and as a result, the Managing Shareholder is not able to predict when there will be a resolution of the claims, or if such resolution will include a payment to the Trust and Growth Fund. In June 2012, the derivative plaintiffs filed an amended claim in Suffolk County Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, against Liberty, to pursue claims that were assigned as part of the above-mentioned settlement, including among other things, breach of contract. The plaintiffs are seeking the award of damages, interest, costs and attorney fees, as well as the authority to enforce the January 2012 settlement agreement against Liberty.