To the extent that these credit commitments expire more than one year after the balance sheet date and are unused, an equal amount of commercial paper is classifiable as long-term debt. Amounts so classified are shown in the tables in this note.

No portion of these lines has been availed of by the company, WRECO or WFS at December 27, 1998, or December 28, 1997, except as noted above.

The company's compensating balance agreements were not significant.

The methods and assumptions used to estimate fair value of each class of financial instruments for which it is practicable to estimate that value are as follows:

• Long-term debt, including the real estate and related assets segment, is estimated based on quoted market prices for the same issues or on the discounted value of the future cash flows expected to be paid using incremental rates of borrowing for similar liabilities.
  

• Mortgage loans receivable are estimated based on the discounted value of estimated future cash flows using current rates for loans with similar terms and risks.
  

• Mortgage-backed certificates and other pledged financial instruments (pledged to secure collateralized mortgage obligations) are estimated using the quoted market prices for securities backed by similar loans and restricted deposits held at cost.

Note 14. Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
In June 1998, a lawsuit was filed against the company in Superior Court, San Francisco County, California, on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that own property in the United States on which exterior hardboard siding manufactured by the company has been installed since 1981. The action alleges the company manufactured and distributed defective hardboard siding, breached express warranties and consumer protection statutes, and failed to disclose to consumers the alleged defective nature of its hardboard siding. The action seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees. In December 1998, the complaint was amended, narrowing the purported class to individuals and entities in the state of California. A class certification hearing is scheduled for the first quarter of 1999. In September 1998, a lawsuit purporting to be a class action involving hardboard siding was filed against the company in Superior Court, King County, Washington. The complaint was amended in January 1999 to allege a class consisting of individuals and entities that own homes or other structures in the United States on which exterior hardboard siding manufactured by the company at its former Klamath Falls, Oregon facility, had been installed from January 1981. The amended complaint alleges the company manufactured defective hardboard siding, engaged in unfair trade practices and failed to disclose to customers the alleged defective nature of its hardboard siding. The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive or treble damages, restitution, attorney fees, costs of the suit and such other relief as may be appropriate. The company is a defendant in approximately twenty-four other hardboard siding cases, one of which purports to be a statewide class action on behalf of purchasers of single or multi-family residences in Iowa that contain the company's hardboard siding. >