Waste Management 2013 Annual Report Download - page 208

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
interest and costs, of less than $100,000. The following matter is disclosed in accordance with that requirement.
We do not currently believe that the eventual outcome of such matter could have a material adverse effect on the
Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
On December 22, 2011, the Harris County Attorney in Houston, Texas filed suit against McGinnes
Industrial Maintenance Corporation (“MIMC”), WM and Waste Management of Texas, Inc., et. al, seeking
civil penalties and attorneys’ fees for alleged violations of the Texas Water Code and the Texas Health and
Safety Code. The County’s Original Petition pending in the District Court of Harris County, Texas alleges
the mismanagement of certain waste pits that were operated from 1965 to 1966 by MIMC. In 1998, a
predecessor of WM acquired the stock of the parent entity of MIMC.
Additionally, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Hawaii has been conducting an
investigation prompted by allegations of violations of the federal Clean Water Act involving discharge of
stormwater at the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill, located on Oahu, in connection with three major storm
events in December 2010 and January 2011. No formal enforcement action has been brought against the
Company. While we could potentially be subject to sanctions, including requirements to pay monetary penalties,
in connection with a future proceeding that may arise from the investigation, a range of loss cannot currently be
estimated because no proceeding has yet commenced and significant factual and legal issues remain. We are
cooperating with the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Litigation — 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 cases primarily pertain to our fuel and environmental charges included on our invoices,
generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair and were contrary to the customer
service contracts. The law firm that filed these lawsuits had filed a purported class action in 2008 against
subsidiaries of WM in Bullock County, Alabama, making similar allegations. The prior Alabama suit was
removed to federal court, where the federal court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs’ national class action claims.
The plaintiffs then elected to dismiss the case without prejudice. We will vigorously defend against these
pending lawsuits. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the early stage of these cases, the
unknown size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of these cases cannot be
predicted and a range of loss cannot currently be estimated.
From time to time, we are also 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. Additionally, we often enter into agreements 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 agreements inherently involves subjective determinations and may result in
disputes, including litigation.
As a large company with operations across the United States and Canada, we are subject to various
proceedings, lawsuits, disputes and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. Many of these actions
raise complex factual and legal issues and are subject to uncertainties. Actions filed against us include
commercial, customer, and employment-related claims, including purported class action lawsuits related to our
sales and marketing practices and our customer service agreements and purported class actions involving federal
118