Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Legal Proceedings	Mar. 31, 2018
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS We and our subsidiaries are involved in various legal, environmental and regulatory proceedings. We believe that adequate provisions have been made and accordingly believe that the ultimate disposition of such matters will not have a material effect on our condensed consolidated financial results. See Notes 5 and 10, “Rate Matters and Regulation” and “Commitments and Contingencies,” for additional information. Pending Merger Following the announcement of the original merger agreement in May 2016, two putative class action petitions (which were consolidated and superseded by a consolidated class action petition) and one putative derivative petition challenging the original merger were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas. In September 2016, the plaintiffs in both actions agreed in principle to dismiss the actions in exchange for our agreement to make supplemental disclosures to shareholders in connection with the original merger agreement and grant waivers of the prohibition on requesting a waiver of the standstill provisions in the confidentiality and standstill agreements executed by the bidders that participated in a sale process that was conducted as part of the original merger agreement. As described below, after the announcement of the revised merger agreement, the plaintiffs in the consolidated putative class action moved to amend their petition, and the plaintiff in the putative derivative case refiled his petition. The consolidated putative class action petition, originally filed July 25, 2016, is captioned In re Westar Energy, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 2016-CV-000457. This petition named as defendants Westar Energy, the members of our board of directors and Great Plains Energy. On September 25, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend her class action petition and attached an amended petition. The petition as amended now includes an additional plaintiff. The petition challenges the revised proposed merger and alleges a claim of breach of fiduciary duty against our board of directors and a claim of aiding and abetting that alleged breach against us and Great Plains Energy. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief declaring the action maintainable as a class action and certifying that the plaintiffs are the class representatives; preliminarily and permanently enjoining the defendants from closing the merger unless we implement a procedure to obtain a merger agreement providing fair and reasonable terms and consideration to the plaintiffs and the class; rescinding the merger agreement or granting the plaintiffs and the class rescissory damages; directing our board of directors to account to the plaintiffs and the class for damages suffered as a result of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty; awarding the plaintiffs reasonable costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees; and granting other equitable relief as the court deems proper. The petition alleges inadequacies in our joint proxy statement concerning the revised proposed transaction and the degree to which our board of directors solicited or considered offers from prior bidders after the proposed original merger was denied by the KCC, and claims that the consideration our stockholders stand to receive in connection with the revised proposed transaction is unfair. Plaintiffs have added two new defendants, Monarch Energy Holding, Inc. and King Energy, Inc., whom they allege aided and abetted our board of directors in breaching their fiduciary duties. On October 18, 2017, the putative derivative petition, captioned Braunstein v. Chandler et al., Case No. 2017-CV-000692, was re-filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas. This putative derivative action names as defendants the members of our board of directors, Great Plains Energy, and subsidiaries of Great Plains Energy, with Westar Energy named as a nominal defendant. The petition asserts that the members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to our shareholders in connection with actions taken after the KCC rejected the proposed original merger. It also asserts that Great Plains Energy and subsidiaries of Great Plains Energy aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The petition alleges, among other things, that the members of our board of directors failed to obtain the best possible price for our shareholders because of a flawed process that discouraged third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals, and that members of our board of directors committed waste by not collecting termination fees that may have been payable following the KCC’s rejection of the original merger agreement. The petition seeks, among other remedies, an order enjoining the merger on the terms proposed and directing that the director defendants exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction, which is in the best interests of us and our shareholders, a declaration that the proposed merger was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable, rescission of the merger agreement if consummated, the imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff, on behalf of us, upon any benefits improperly received by the named defendants as a result of their wrongful conduct, and an award for costs, including attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees. In addition, on September 21, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned David Pill v. Westar Energy, Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 17-4086. The federal class action complaint challenges the merger and alleges violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act). The complaint seeks an order declaring that the action is maintainable as a class action and certifying that the plaintiff is the class representative; preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants from consummating the mergers or, if consummated, setting them aside and awarding rescissory damages; directing the defendants to file a registration statement on Form S-4 that corrects alleged misstatements; directing our board of directors to account to plaintiff and the class for their damages; awarding reasonable costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees; and granting other further relief as the court deems proper. On October 6, 2017, another putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned Robert L. Reese v. Westar Energy, Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-02584. This federal class action complaint challenges the proposed merger and alleges violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks an order enjoining the board and other parties from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the merger or, if consummated, setting it aside and awarding rescissory damages; directing the board to disseminate a registration statement that corrects alleged misstatements and includes all material facts the plaintiff asserts are missing; declaring that the defendants violated sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9; awarding reasonable costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees; and granting other equitable relief as the court deems proper. On November 16, 2017, the parties in each of the actions independently agreed to withdraw requests for injunctive relief and otherwise agreed in principle to dismissing the actions with prejudice and to providing releases, in exchange for the supplemental disclosures that we filed in a Form 8-K on November 16, 2017. These agreements do not constitute any admission by any of the defendants as to the merits of any claims. In the future, the parties will prepare and present to the court for approval Stipulations of Settlement that will, if accepted by the court, settle the actions in their entirety. The outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the time the merger closes may adversely affect the combined company’s business, financial condition or results of operation.

WESTAR ENERGY INC /KS 10-Q