ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
Montrose Chemical Corporation of California ("Montrose"), whose stock is 50% owned by Chris-Craft and 50% by a subsidiary of ICI Americas, Inc. ("ICI"), discontinued its manufacturing operations in 1983 and has since been defending claims for costs and damages relating to environmental matters. Chris-Craft has been named as a defendant in certain of these actions by plaintiffs seeking to hold Chris-Craft liable for Montrose activities.
In April 1983, the United States of America and the State of California instituted an action in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, United States of America et al. v. J.B. Stringfellow, et al., Case No. 83-2501 (JMI) (Mcx), against Montrose and approximately 30 other defendants relating to alleged environmental impairment at the Stringfellow Hazardous Waste Disposal Site in California. The complaint alleges that Montrose generated toxic wastes containing DDT which were deposited at the Stringfellow Site between 1969 and 1972, allegedly constituting approximately 19% by volume of all toxic wastes deposited at the site. During this period, the Stringfellow Site was licensed as a hazardous waste disposal facility by the State of California. The action seeks an injunction against numerous generators of waste materials which were deposited at the Stringfellow Site, including Montrose, the owners of the Stringfellow Site and others to abate the release of substances from the site and to remedy allegedly hazardous conditions. The action seeks to impose joint and several liability against all defendants for all costs of removal and remedial action incurred by the federal and state governments at the site. On September 30, 1990, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issued a Record of Decision for the site which selected some of the interim remedial measures preferred by the EPA and the State, the estimated present value of the capital costs of which was estimated by them to be $169,000,000, although the estimate purports to be subject to potential variations of up to 50%. Plaintiffs also seek recovery for remedial expenditures. The action also seeks unspecified damages for alleged harm to natural resources. Private parties have intervened in the action. On June 22, 1992, Montrose and other defendants signed a consent decree with the United States regarding certain remedial work at and near the Stringfellow Site, which decree was entered by the District Court in October 1992. On November 30, 1993 Special Master Harry V. Peetris entered a recommended ruling allocating liability at the site under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") and state law. The CERCLA allocation was 65% to the State of California, 10% to the owners of the site and 25% to the generator defendants (including Montrose). The state law allocation was 100% to the State and 0% to the Stringfellow entities. The Special Master's recommended ruling will be reviewed by the District Court before it enters a final allocation decision. The State is expected to appeal when the final order is entered by the District Court. In addition, the United States Department of Justice has sought and received information regarding the relationship between Montrose and its two 50% shareholders. The Department's inquiry is directed to the issue whether Chris-Craft, as a shareholder of Montrose, shall be added as a party to the action.
In February 1993 Montrose and Chris-Craft were among a group of defendants which settled a case entitled Newman, et al. v. J.B. Stringfellow, et al., Case No. 165944 MF, in Riverside County (California) Superior Court. In Newman more than 4,000 plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages from more than 20 defendants for personal injury and property damage purportedly caused by substances allegedly released from the Stringfellow site. Montrose contributed approximately $7.5 million to the Newman settlement, over 80% of which was covered by insurance. Chris-Craft made no contribution to the settlement. The State of California is appealing the August 1993 order of the Newman court finding the settlement was in good faith.
In 1992 Chris-Craft was named a defendant in a personal injury action entitled Teresa Howell v. J.B. Stringfellow, Jr., et al., Case No. 216798 in Riverside County (California)
Superior Court, involving claims brought by an individual plaintiff seeking to recover unspecified damages from approximately 15 defendants (including Montrose) for alleged injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to substances disposed of at the Stringfellow Hazardous Waste Disposal Site in California. On January 25, 1994, the court in the Howell case ordered the suit to be dismissed as time-barred by applicable statutes of limitations.
In June 1990, the United States of America and the State of California commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled United States of America, et al. v. Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, et al., Civil Action No. 90-3122 AAH (JRX), against, among others, Montrose and Chris-Craft. Certain United States subsidiaries of ICI (the "ICI Subsidiaries"), as well as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Potlatch Corporation and Simpson Paper Company, which have no connection with Chris-Craft, were also named as defendants. Brought under CERCLA, the complaint alleges that Montrose released hazardous substances, including DDT, into the environment in and around Los Angeles, California, including the waters surrounding the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, and the Channel Islands. The complaint alleges that other defendants released PCBs into the same waters. The complaint seeks a declaration that defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages (in amounts not specified), including loss of use and cost of restoration, resulting from injury to natural resources caused by the alleged releases, plaintiffs' response costs incurred in connection with such damage, and plaintiffs' costs in assessing such damages. On April 26, 1993, the court approved a settlement between the plaintiffs, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District ("LACSD") and numerous municipalities and local government entities which had been sued by Montrose, Chris-Craft and other defendants as third-party defendants. The settlement would resolve all liability between the plaintiffs and the LACSD and the third-party entities for approximately $42 million in cash and in-kind services, and purports to immunize the settling defendants from the cross- claims and third party claims of Montrose and Chris-Craft. Montrose, Chris-Craft and other defendants have appealed the District court's approval of the settlement to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs also seek to hold Montrose, Chris-Craft, and the ICI Subsidiaries jointly and severally liable for all costs incurred in connection with the alleged hazardous substance contamination at the Montrose plant site in Torrance, California. Montrose terminated most of its operations, including all DDT manufacturing, prior to 1983.
Since 1984 Montrose has been complying with a Consent Order entered into with the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Protection ("DEP") requiring operation of a ground water intercept treatment system near a production facility used by Montrose until 1985 in Henderson, Nevada. The EPA and DEP are currently reconsidering whether the complex that includes the Henderson facility should be included on the National Priority List. In April 1991, Montrose entered into a second consent order with DEP and other parties requiring investigation of environmental conditions at the Henderson facility.
Montrose is a defendant in an action styled Levin Metals Corporation, et al. v. Parr-Richmond Terminal Company, et al., Case Numbers C-84-6273 BAC, C-84-6234 BAC and C-85-4776 BAC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in which it is alleged that Montrose contributed to the contamination of certain real property in Richmond, California, and in which damages sought exceed $15 million. In December 1992 two parties to the Parr-Richmond action filed pleadings naming Chris-Craft as a defendant alleging, among other things, that Chris-Craft is secondarily liable under corporate liability theories for Montrose's liabilities, if any. Chris-Craft filed an answer denying liability on June 11, 1993, asserting numerous affirmative defenses and filing
counterclaims. The court in the Levin case has ordered discovery efforts to proceed in advance of a mediation conference scheduled for early June 1994.
In January 1990, Montrose and Chris-Craft were each notified by the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that the United States intends to name each of them as a defendant in an action seeking recovery for alleged damage to natural resources emanating from the Richmond site. In March 1990, the EPA added the site to the National Priority List. In August 1991 and March 1992, the EPA invited potentially responsible parties, including Chris-Craft, to undertake investigation and remedial actions at the site. Chris-Craft has not taken any such actions.
In August 1992, Montrose was named one of approximately 18 defendants in Alderman, et al. v. Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc., et al., Case No. BC062039 in Los Angeles County (California) Superior Court, where approximately 100 individual plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified amounts for alleged personal injuries and property damage purportedly caused by contamination at two neighboring properties in California, one of which formerly was used by Montrose for manufacturing operations. Chris-Craft was added as a defendant in December 1992. After the complaint against Chris-Craft was served, the United States of America, a third- party defendant, removed the Alderman action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where it is currently pending (Case No. 92-7535 ER). Plaintiffs have moved to remand the Alderman action to state court; their motion to remand is pending. In January 1993, Chris-Craft filed an answer denying the allegations against it and denying any and all liability. No substantial discovery has yet occurred in the Alderman action, although much is scheduled for 1994. A statement of damages filed by the plaintiffs alleges general damages of $7 million.
In October 1992, Montrose was named one of approximately 20 defendants in T H Agriculture and Nutrition Company, Inc. v. Aceto Chemical Co., Inc., Case No. C92-4152-MHP in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, where it is alleged Montrose contributed to contamination at a former pesticide formulation site in Fresno, California and where damages sought exceed $21 million. During 1993 Montrose rejected a settlement demand by the plaintiffs of $12.69 million. Chris-Craft was added as a defendant in January 1994.
In October 1992, Montrose was named one of approximately 28 third party defendants by a County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County in Acosta, et al. v. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, et al., Case No. BC057637 in Los Angeles County (California) Superior Court, where it is alleged Montrose is partially liable for an unspecified decrease in the values of properties owned by approximately 530 individual plaintiffs living near a Sanitation District sewage treatment facility.
ITEM 4.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.
Not applicable.
	 EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
	The executive officers of Chris-Craft, as of February 28, 1994, are as follows:
								Schedule II
		 CHRIS-CRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES 			AMOUNTS RECEIVABLE FROM RELATED PARTIES, 	 UNDERWRITERS, PROMOTERS AND EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN RELATED PARTIES 			FOR THE THREE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1993 				 (In Thousands)
The loan was made for the purpose of assisting Mr. Lindsey in relocating his home in connection with the relocation of UTV's executive offices from Minneapolis to Los Angeles. The loan was represented by a non-interest bearing five-year note, with no payment due before maturity. In December 1988, the note was revised and extended. Under the Revision and Extension Agreement, 10% of the original balance is due and payable December 31 of each year through December 31, 1997. Such installments will be forgiven on each such December 31 if the borrower is still employed by UTV on each such forgiveness date. The note is secured by a deed of trust on the borrower's home and provides that at the option of the holder the loan will become due and payable upon sale or further encumbrance of the borrower's home without the consent of the holder or upon the borrower's voluntary termination of employment with UTV.
							 Schedule X
		 CHRIS-CRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES 		 SUPPLEMENTARY INCOME STATEMENT INFORMATION
				 (In Thousands)
				EXHIBIT INDEX