Cemex 2013 Annual Report Download - page 123
Download and view the complete annual report
Please find page 123 of the 2013 Cemex annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.Notes to the consolidated financial statements
• InJanuaryandMarch2009,oneofCEMEX’ssubsidiariesinMexicowasnotiedoftwondingsissuedbytheMexicanCompetition
Authority (
Comisión Federal de Competencia
or “CFC”), for presumptive violations of Mexican antitrust laws. During the CFC
investigation,CEMEXledconstitutionalchallengesforbothcasesconsideringthatthesendingscontainsubstantialviolationsofrights
grantedbytheMexicanConstitution.Inbothchallenges,theCircuitCourtsresolvedthatCEMEXlackedstandingsincethenoticeof
presumptiveresponsibilitydidnotaffectanyofCEMEX’srights.CEMEXappealedsuchresolutions.Withrespecttothesecondcase,on
October14,2011,theCFCdeterminedtoclosethecaseduetoalackofevidencetoimposeanysanctions.Thirdpartiessubsequently
ledanappealbeforetheCFCtoreconsideritsruling.TheCFCrecentlyconrmeditsresolutiontonotimposeanysanctionsduetoa
lackofevidence.ThisdecisionwaschallengedbytheplaintiffsbeforeaMexicoCity’sDistrictCourtthroughaconstitutionalchallenge,
whichwasdismissed;thereaftertheplaintiffsappealedthisresolutionbeforeaCircuitCourtinMexicoCity.OnSeptember20,2013,
theCircuitCourtinMexicoCityconrmedthatthecaseshouldbeclosedduetoalackofevidencetoimposeanysanctions.With
respecttotherstcase,onFebruary14,2012, CEMEXwasnedforapproximately$10.2foranticompetitivepracticesandwas
orderedtoimplementcertainmeasures.CEMEXappealedtheresolutionbeforetheCFCandtheCircuitCourtinMonterreyanddenied
anywrongdoing.InJune2012,theCFCconrmeditsresolution.OnJuly2,2012,CEMEXledaseparateconstitutionalchallenge
beforetheMexicoCity’sDistrictCourtandsimultaneouslyledaclaimagainsttheJune2012CFC’sresolutionbeforetheCircuitCourt
inMonterrey.TheMonterreyCircuitCourtnulliedthenepreviouslyimposedonCEMEX,consequentlyonMay15,2013,theDistrict
CourtinMexicoCitydismissedtheconstitutionalchallengeledbyCEMEXagainstthatdecision.OnDecember18,2012,theCFC
ratieditsresolution,whichCEMEXappealed.OnFebruary12,2013,CEMEXledanappealagainstthenewresolutionbeforethe
MonterreyCircuitCourt.OnJune6,2013,theMonterreyCircuitCourtruledthattheCFCdidnotcomplywithitsresolutionandthat
themattershouldbesenttoMexico’sSupremeCourtinordertoapplytherelevantsanctionstotheCFC.OncetheCFCwasnotied
ofthecontentofthisresolution,theCFCissuedanewdecisionrevokingitspreviousresolutionandwithdrawingallchargesagainst
CEMEX.
• InJanuary 2009,inresponsetolitigation broughtby environmentalgroupsconcerning themannerin whichcertainfederalquarry
permitsweregranted,ajudgefromtheU.S.DistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofFloridaorderedthewithdrawalofthefederal
quarrypermitsofCEMEX’sSCL,FECandKendallKromequarries,intheLakeBeltareainSouthFlorida,whichweregrantedin2002to
CEMEXConstructionMaterialsFlorida,LLC(“CEMEXFlorida”),oneofCEMEX’ssubsidiariesintheUnitedStates.Thejudgeruledthat
thereweredecienciesintheproceduresandanalysisundertakenbytheArmyCorpsofEngineers(the“Engineers”)inconnection
withtheissuanceofthepermits.OnJanuary29,2010,theEngineersconcludedarevisionanddeterminedproceduresforgranting
newfederalquarrypermitsfortheSCLandFECquarries.DuringFebruary2010,newquarrypermitsweregrantedtotheSCLandFEC
quarries.AnumberofpotentialenvironmentalimpactsmustbeaddressedatthewetlandslocatedattheKendallKromesitebeforea
newfederalquarrypermitmaybeissuedforminingatthatquarry.IfCEMEXFloridawereunabletomaintainthenewLakeBeltpermits,
CEMEXFloridawouldneedtosourceaggregates,totheextentavailable,fromotherlocationsinFloridaorimportaggregates.The
cessationorsignicantrestrictionofquarryingoperationsintheLakeBeltareacouldhaveasignicantadverseimpactonCEMEX’s
resultsofoperations,liquidityornancialcondition.
• InNovember2008,AMEC/Zachry,thegeneralcontractorforCEMEX’sexpansionprojectinBrooksville,Florida,ledalawsuitagainst
CEMEXFloridainFloridaStateCourtinOrlando,forUS$60($783),allegingdelaydamagesandseekinganequitableadjustmentto
thecontractandpaymentofchangeorders.During2009,FLSmidth(“FLS”),asupplierfortheminingandcementindustry,becamea
co-defendantinthelawsuit.During2009and2010,CEMEXledcounterclaimsagainstbothsuppliers.OnNovember18,2010,the
courtdeniedAMEC/Zachry’smotiontodismissagainstCEMEXFlorida,anddeniedFLS’smotiononthepleadingagainstCEMEXFlorida.
OnJanuary6,2011,CEMEXFloridaamendeditspleadingsinaccordancewiththecourt’srulings.OnMarch17,2011,FLSledanother
motionseekingdismissalofoneofCEMEXFlorida’snewclaimsassertedintheamendedpleading.InDecember2012,thepartiestothis
proceedinghaveenteredintoasettlement.ThesettlementofthismatterdidnothaveamaterialadverseimpactonCEMEX’sresults
ofoperations,liquidityornancialcondition.
[122]