Waste Management 2011 Annual Report Download - page 190

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
plan based on allegations related to both the events alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the securities class
action against WM Holdings that was settled in 1998, the litigation against WM in Texas that was settled in
2002, as well as the decision to offer WM common stock as an investment option within the plan beginning in
1990, despite alleged knowledge by at least two members of the investment committee of financial misstatement
by WM during the relevant time period.
During the second quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain claims against individual defendants,
including all claims against each of the current members of our Board of Directors. Previously, plaintiffs
dismissed all claims related to the settlement of the securities class action against WM that was settled in 2002,
and the court certified a limited class of participants who may bring claims on behalf of the plan, but not
individually. During the third quarter of 2011, the Court ruled in favor of WM and two former employees
dismissing all claims brought by the plaintiffs related to the decision to offer WM stock as an investment option
within the plan. The Court still has under consideration additional motions that, if granted, would resolve the few
remaining claims against WM and its Committees. The outcome of this lawsuit cannot be predicted with
certainty. The defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in this litigation.
In July 2008, subsidiaries of WM were named as defendants in purported class actions in the Circuit Court
of Bullock County, Alabama, which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama. This suit pertained to our fuel and environmental charge in our customer service
agreements and generally alleged that such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair and were contrary to
the contracts. We filed a motion to dismiss that was partially granted during the third quarter of 2010, resulting in
dismissal of the plaintiffs’ national class action claims. During the third quarter of 2011, the plaintiffs filed and
the Court granted a motion to dismiss the litigation without prejudice.
In October 2011 and January 2012, we were named as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit
Court of Sarasota County, Florida and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County Alabama, respectively. These suits
were filed by the same law firm that brought the Alabama litigation discussed in the prior paragraph, and these
cases also primarily pertain to our fuel and environmental charges in our customer service agreements, generally
alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair and were contrary to the contracts. We will
vigorously defend this matter. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of these cases
cannot be predicted at this time, nor can possible damages, if any, be reasonably estimated.
We often enter into contractual arrangements with landowners imposing obligations on us to meet certain
regulatory or contractual conditions upon site closure or upon termination of the agreements. Compliance with
these arrangements is inherently subject to subjective determinations and may result in disputes, including
litigation. In May 2008, Mnoian Management, Inc. filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking
remediation and increased compaction of a site we had previously leased for landfill purposes. The parties have
completed a binding arbitration, and all principal matters have been resolved.
From time to time, we also are named as defendants in personal injury and property damage lawsuits,
including purported class actions, on the basis of having owned, operated or transported waste to a disposal
facility that is alleged to have contaminated the environment or, in certain cases, on the basis of having
conducted environmental remediation activities at sites. Some of the lawsuits may seek to have us pay the costs
of monitoring of allegedly affected sites and health care examinations of allegedly affected persons for a
substantial period of time even where no actual damage is proven. While we believe we have meritorious
defenses to these lawsuits, the ultimate resolution is often substantially uncertain due to the difficulty of
determining the cause, extent and impact of alleged contamination (which may have occurred over a long period
of time), the potential for successive groups of complainants to emerge, the diversity of the individual plaintiffs’
circumstances, and the potential contribution or indemnification obligations of co-defendants or other third
parties, among other factors.
111