v2.4.0.6

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES General Legal Proceedings We are subject to extensive and evolving laws and regulations and have implemented our own safeguards to respond to regulatory requirements. In the normal course of conducting our operations, we become involved in legal proceedings. Some of these actions may result in fines, penalties or judgments against us, which may impact earnings and cash flows for a particular period. Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of any legal matter with certainty, except as described below, we do not believe that the outcome of our pending legal proceedings will have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. As used herein, the term legal proceedings refers to litigation and similar claims against us and our subsidiaries, excluding: (i) ordinary course accidents, general commercial liability and workers compensation claims, which are covered by insurance programs, subject to customary deductibles, and which, together with self-insured employee health care costs, are discussed in Note 7, Other Liabilities; (ii) environmental remediation liabilities, which are discussed in Note 8, Landfill and Environmental Costs; and (iii) tax-related matters, which are discussed in Note 10, Income Taxes. We accrue for legal proceedings when losses become probable and reasonably estimable. We have recorded an aggregate accrual of approximately $114 million relating to our outstanding legal proceedings as of December 31, 2011, including those described herein and others not specifically identified herein. As of the end of each applicable reporting period, we review each of our legal proceedings and, where it is probable that a liability has been incurred, we accrue for all probable and reasonably estimable losses. Where we are able to reasonably estimate a range of losses we may incur with respect to such a matter, we record an accrual for the amount within the range that constitutes our best estimate. If we are able to reasonably estimate a range but no amount within the range appears to be a better estimate than any other, we use the amount that is the low end of such range. If we used the high ends of such ranges, our aggregate potential liability would have been approximately $109 million higher than the amount recorded as of December 31, 2011. Countywide Matters In September 2009, Republic Services of Ohio II, LLC (Republic-Ohio) entered into Final Findings and Orders with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency that require us to implement a comprehensive operation and maintenance program to manage the remediation area at the Countywide Recycling and Disposal Facility (Countywide). The remediation liability for Countywide recorded as of December 31, 2011 is $56.8 million, of which $5.0 million is expected to be paid during 2012. We believe the reasonably possible range of loss for remediation costs is $53 million to $74 million. In a suit filed on October 8, 2008 in the Tuscarawas County Ohio Court of Common Pleas, approximately 700 individuals and businesses located in the area around the Countywide Recycling and Disposal Facility (Countywide) sued Republic Services, Inc. and Republic-Ohio for alleged negligence and nuisance. Republic-Ohio has owned and operated Countywide since February 1, 1999. Waste Management, Inc. and Waste Management Ohio, Inc., previous owners and operators of Countywide, were named as defendants as well. Plaintiffs allege that due to the acceptance of a specific waste stream and operational issues and conditions, the landfill has generated odors and other unsafe emissions that have impaired the use and value of their property and may have adverse health effects. A second almost identical lawsuit was filed by approximately 82 plaintiffs on October 13, 2009 in the Tuscarawas County Ohio Court of Common Pleas against Republic Services, Inc., Republic-Ohio, Waste Management, Inc., and Waste Management Ohio, Inc. The court has consolidated the two actions. We have assumed both the defense and the liability of the Waste Management entities in the consolidated action. The relief requested on behalf of each plaintiff in the consolidated action is: (1) an award of compensatory damages according to proof in an amount in excess of $25,000 for each of the three counts of the amended complaint; (2) an award of punitive damages in the amount of two times compensatory damages, pursuant to applicable statute, or in such amount as may be awarded at trial for each of the three counts of the amended complaint; (3) costs for medical screening and monitoring of each plaintiff; (4) interest on the damages according to law; (5) costs and disbursements of the lawsuit; (6) reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses; and (7) any other and further relief as the court deems just, proper and equitable. Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on September 9, 2010, which no longer asserts a claim for medical monitoring. As a result of various dismissals of plaintiffs, this case presently consists of approximately 600 plaintiffs. Discovery is ongoing. In February 2011, the court granted our motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ qualified statutory nuisance claims. Republic Services, Inc., Waste Management, Inc. and Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. have been dismissed from the litigation. We will continue to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs’ allegations in the consolidated action. Luri Matter On August 17, 2007, a former employee, Ronald Luri, sued Republic Services, Inc., Republic Services of Ohio Hauling LLC, Republic Services of Ohio I LLC, Jim Bowen and Ron Krall in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in Ohio. Plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully fired in retaliation for refusing to discharge or demote three employees who were all over 50 years old. On July 3, 2008, a jury verdict was awarded against us in the amount of $46.6 million, including $43.1 million in punitive damages. On September 24, 2008, the Court awarded pre-judgment interest of $0.3 million and attorney fees and litigation costs of $1.1 million. Post-judgment interest accrued or will accrue at a rate of 8% for 2008, 5% for 2009, 4% for 2010 and 2011, and 3% for 2012. Management anticipates that post-judgment interest could accrue through the end of 2012 for a total of up to $9.5 million. We appealed to the Court of Appeals, and on May 19, 2011 the court reduced the punitive damages award to $7.0 million. The Ohio Supreme Court has granted plaintiff’s and defendants’ petitions for review of the appellate decision. It is reasonably possible that following all appeals a final judgment of liability for compensatory and punitive damages may be assessed against us related to this matter. Litigation Related to Fuel and Administrative Fees On November 20, 2009, Klingler’s European Bake Shop & Deli, Inc., filed a complaint against BFI Waste Services, LLC in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, in which plaintiff complains about fuel recovery fees and administrative fees charged. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class of similarly situated plaintiffs in Alabama. This complaint asserts various legal and equitable theories of recovery and alleges in essence that the fees were not properly disclosed, were unfair, and were contrary to contract. Class-certification-related discovery concluded, plaintiff did not move for class certification by the November 10, 2011 deadline, and during a hearing on November 22, 2011, plaintiff withdrew its class allegations. On November 29, 2011, the Court dismissed the class allegations, without prejudice. Although Plaintiff has not specified the amount of damages sought, the fees at issue total less than $1,600. Chicago Contracting Matter We discovered actions of non-compliance by one of our subsidiaries with the subcontracting provisions of certain government contracts in our Chicago market. These contracts included contracts with the City of Chicago (the City) and with certain other municipal agencies in the Chicago area. We reported the discovery to, and have had further discussions with, law enforcement and other authorities. On December 29, 2011, we signed a settlement agreement with the City under which we have: (1) paid the City $11 million in January 2012; (2) agreed to convert 79 positions at our Chicago transfer station and materials recovery facilities, which are currently held by temporary workers through vendors, to full-time company employees; and (3) released any claims we might have due to alleged shortfalls in the amount of waste delivered by the City under one of our contracts. In exchange, the City has released all claims against us and has agreed that we may continue to perform our existing contracts and that we will remain eligible to bid on future City contracts. Although we have settled with the City, the matter remains ongoing with law enforcement authorities and other municipal agencies. Our non-compliance could result in additional payments by us in the form of restitution, damages, or penalties, or the loss of future business in the affected market or other markets. Congress Development Landfill Matters Congress Development Co. (CDC) is a general partnership that owns and operates the Congress Landfill. The general partners in CDC are our subsidiary, Allied Waste Transportation, Inc. (Allied Transportation), and an unaffiliated entity, John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corporation (Sexton). Sexton was the operator of the landfill through early 2007, when Allied Transportation took over as the operator. The general partners likely will be jointly and severally liable for the costs associated with the following matters relating to the Congress Landfill. In August 2010, Congress Development Company agreed with the State of Illinois to have a Final Consent Order (Final Order) entered by the Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County. Pursuant to the Final Order, we have agreed to continue to implement certain remedial activities at the Congress Landfill. The remediation liability for Congress recorded as of December 31, 2011 is $83.6 million, of which $7.4 million is expected to be paid during 2012. We believe the reasonably possible range of loss for remediation costs is $53 million to $154 million. In a suit originally filed on December 23, 2009 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and subsequently amended to add additional plaintiffs, approximately 2,550 plaintiffs sued our subsidiaries Allied Transportation and Allied Waste Industries, Inc., CDC and Sexton. The court entered an order dismissing Allied Waste Industries, Inc. without prejudice on October 26, 2010. The plaintiffs allege bodily injury, property damage and inability to have normal use and enjoyment of property arising from, among other things, odors and other damages arising from landfill gas leaking, and they base their claims on negligence, trespass, and nuisance. On January 6, 2012, the court took plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages under advisement, to be considered on a plaintiff-by-plaintiff basis. The court also granted plaintiffs leave to serve discovery on the punitive damages issue. Following the court’s order in our favor striking the plaintiffs’ allegations requesting actual damages in excess of $50 million and punitive damages in excess of $50 million, the amount of damages being sought is unspecified. Discovery is ongoing. We intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs’ allegations in this action. Livingston Matter On October 13, 2009, the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston, State of Louisiana, issued its Post Class Certification Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a lawsuit alleging nuisance from the activities of the former hazardous waste facility owned by our subsidiary CECOS International, Inc. (CECOS) located in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The court granted class certification for all those living within a six mile radius of the CECOS site between the years 1977 and 1990. We appealed the class certification order. On August 17, 2011, the court of appeals granted a joint motion to remand the case to the trial court for the parties to finalize a proposed settlement. The parties executed a settlement agreement on September 15, 2011, which was approved by the trial court at a fairness hearing on December 8, 2011. The settlement agreement, which provides for payment of $29.5 million to settle the claims of the class, will become final upon the expiration of the appeal period on February 23, 2012, unless an appeal is filed before that date. Lease Commitments We and our subsidiaries lease real property, equipment and software under various operating leases with remaining terms from one month to twenty-six years. Rent expense during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $49.9 million, $51.6 million and $60.1 million, respectively. Future minimum lease obligations under non-cancelable operating leases with initial terms in excess of one year at December 31, 2011 are as follows:
2012 |  | $ | 28.4 |
2013 |  |  | 24.8 |
2014 |  |  | 18.5 |
2015 |  |  | 15.3 |
2016 |  |  | 13.5 |
Thereafter |  |  | 61.0 |
|  | $ | 161.5 |
Unconditional Purchase Commitments Royalties We have entered into agreements to pay royalties to prior landowners, lessors or host communities, based on waste tonnage disposed at specified landfills. These royalties are generally payable quarterly and amounts incurred, but not paid, are accrued in our consolidated balance sheets. Royalties are accrued as tonnage is disposed of in the landfills. Disposal Agreements We have several agreements expiring at various dates through 2030 that require us to dispose of a minimum number of tons at third-party disposal facilities. Under these put-or-pay agreements, we must pay for agreed-upon minimum volumes regardless of the actual number of tons placed at the facilities. Future minimum payments under unconditional purchase commitments, consisting primarily of (i) disposal related agreements which include fixed or minimum royalty payments, host agreements, and take-or-pay and put-or-pay agreements, and (ii) other obligations including committed capital expenditures and consulting service agreements at December 31, 2011 are as follows:
2012 |  | $ | 196.8 |
2013 |  |  | 80.0 |
2014 |  |  | 68.1 |
2015 |  |  | 31.7 |
2016 |  |  | 25.3 |
Thereafter |  |  | 242.4 |
|  | $ | 644.3 |
Restricted Cash and Other Financial Guarantees We must provide financial assurance to governmental agencies and a variety of other entities under applicable environmental regulations relating to our landfill operations for capping, closure and post-closure costs, and our performance under certain collection, landfill and transfer station contracts. We satisfy our financial assurance requirements by providing surety bonds, letters of credit, insurance policies or trust deposits. The amount of the financial assurance requirements for capping, closure and post-closure costs is determined by applicable state environmental regulations, which vary by state. The financial assurance requirements for capping, closure and post-closure costs can either be for costs associated with a portion of the landfill or the entire landfill. Generally, states will require a third-party engineering specialist to determine the estimated capping, closure and post-closure costs that are used to determine the required amount of financial assurance for a landfill. The amount of financial assurance required can, and generally will, differ from the obligation determined and recorded under U.S. GAAP. The amount of the financial assurance requirements related to contract performance varies by contract. Additionally, we are required to provide financial assurance for our self-insurance program and collateral for certain performance obligations. We had the following financial instruments and collateral in place to secure our financial assurances at December 31:
|  | 2011 |  |  | 2010 |
Letters of credit |  | $ | 978.2 |  |  | $ | 1,077.0 |
Surety bonds |  |  | 2,728.2 |  |  |  | 2,622.3 |
The letters of credit use $950.2 million and $1,037.5 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, of availability under our Credit Facilities. Surety bonds expire on various dates through 2038. These financial instruments are issued in the normal course of business and are not debt. Because we currently have no liability for this financial assurance, it is not reflected in our consolidated balance sheets. However, we have recorded capping, closure and post-closure obligations and self-insurance reserves as they are incurred. The underlying financial assurance obligations, in excess of those already reflected in our consolidated balance sheets, would be recorded if it is probable that we would be unable to fulfill our related obligations. We do not expect this to occur. Our restricted cash and marketable securities deposits include, among other things, restricted cash and marketable securities held for capital expenditures under certain debt facilities, and restricted cash and marketable securities pledged to regulatory agencies and governmental entities as financial guarantees of our performance related to our final capping, closure and post-closure obligations at our landfills. The following table summarizes our restricted cash and marketable securities as of December 31:
|  | 2011 |  |  | 2010 |
Financing proceeds |  | $ | 22.5 |  |  | $ | 39.8 |
Capping, closure and post-closure obligations |  |  | 54.9 |  |  |  | 61.8 |
Self-insurance |  |  | 75.2 |  |  |  | 63.8 |
Other |  |  | 37.0 |  |  |  | 7.4 |
Total restricted cash and marketable securities |  | $ | 189.6 |  |  | $ | 172.8 |
We own a 19.9% interest in a company that, among other activities, issues financial surety bonds to secure capping, closure and post-closure obligations for companies operating in the solid waste industry. We account for this investment under the cost method of accounting. There have been no identified events or changes in circumstances that may have a significant adverse effect on the recoverability of the investment. This investee company and the parent company of the investee had written surety bonds for us relating to our landfill operations for capping, closure and post-closure, of which $893.5 million and $855.0 million were outstanding as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Our reimbursement obligations under these bonds are secured by an indemnity agreement with the investee and letters of credit totaling $45.0 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010. Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements We have no off-balance sheet debt or similar obligations, other than operating leases and the financial assurances discussed above, which are not classified as debt. We have no transactions or obligations with related parties that are not disclosed, consolidated into or reflected in our reported financial position or results of operations. We have not guaranteed any third-party debt. Guarantees We enter into contracts in the normal course of business that include indemnification clauses. Indemnifications relating to known liabilities are recorded in the consolidated financial statements based on our best estimate of required future payments. Certain of these indemnifications relate to contingent events or occurrences, such as the imposition of additional taxes due to a change in the tax law or adverse interpretation of the tax law, and indemnifications made in divestiture agreements where we indemnify the buyer for liabilities that relate to our activities prior to the divestiture and that may become known in the future. We do not believe that these contingent obligations will have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We have entered into agreements with property owners to guarantee the value of property that is adjacent to certain of our landfills. These agreements have varying terms. We do not believe that these contingent obligations will have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Other Matters Our business activities are conducted in the context of a developing and changing statutory and regulatory framework. Governmental regulation of the waste management industry requires us to obtain and retain numerous governmental permits to conduct various aspects of our operations. These permits are subject to revocation, modification or denial. The costs and other capital expenditures that may be required to obtain or retain the applicable permits or comply with applicable regulations could be significant. Any revocation, modification or denial of permits could have a material adverse effect on us.

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration