XML 28 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT  v2.3.0.11
Commitments And Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments And Contingencies  
Commitments And Contingencies
11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
From time to time we are a party to various claims, lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. We maintain insurance coverage to minimize the financial risk associated with these proceedings. None of these proceedings, separately or in the aggregate, are expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. With respect to all such proceedings, we record reserves when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We expense routine legal costs related to these proceedings as they are incurred.
The following is a discussion of certain of our significant legal matters:
Centerpoint Project
We were a co-plaintiff in a breach of contract and mechanics' lien foreclosure action in Maricopa County, Arizona superior court. The defendants were Centerpoint Construction, LLC and Tempe Land Company, LLC, the general contractor and owner, respectively, of a condominium and retail development project in Tempe, Arizona. In December 2008, Tempe Land Company, LLC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Phoenix, Arizona. The principal amount of our claim was approximately $3,992, exclusive of interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In March 2009, we transferred $3,992 of trade accounts receivable to long-term receivable. At the same time, we reserved the costs in excess of billings of $278 associated with this receivable.
In April 2010, the project property was sold at foreclosure to the project lender. In the sale, the project lender acquired the project property subject only to superior encumbrances. The priority of the mechanics' lien claims over the project lender's deeds of trust was to be determined at trial, which was anticipated to occur in April 2011.
As a result of the April 2010 foreclosure sale and the uncertainties associated with the outcome of the lawsuit, we determined that there was a reasonable possibility, but not a probability, of collection of our claim. As a result, we wrote-off the remaining $3,714 long-term receivable. In February 2011, we entered into a $2,850 settlement in connection with the breach of contract and mechanics' lien foreclosure actions. The $2,850 recovery was recorded in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations as a component of selling, general, and administrative expenses.
Ward Transformer Site
One of our subsidiaries has been identified as one of more than 200 potentially responsible parties (PRPs) with respect to the clean-up of an electric transformer resale and reconditioning facility, known as the Ward Transformer Site, located in Raleigh, North Carolina. The facility built, repaired, reconditioned and sold electric transformers from approximately 1964 to 2005. We did not own or operate the facility but a subsidiary that we acquired in July 1999 is believed to have sent transformers to the facility during the 1990's. During the course of its operation, the facility was contaminated by Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), which also have been found to have migrated off the site.
Four PRPs have commenced clean-up of on-site contaminated soils under an Emergency Removal Action pursuant to a settlement agreement and Administrative Order on Consent entered into between the four PRPs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in September 2005. We are not a party to that settlement agreement or Order on Consent. In April 2009, two of these PRPs, Carolina Power and Light Company and Consolidation Coal Company, filed suit against us and most of the other PRPs in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Western Division) to contribute to the cost of the clean-up. In addition to the on-site clean-up, the EPA has selected approximately 50 PRPs to which it sent a Special Notice Letter in late 2008 to organize the clean-up of soils off site and address contamination of groundwater and other miscellaneous off-site issues. We were not a recipient of that letter.
Based on our investigation to date, there is evidence to support our defense that our subsidiary contributed no PCB contamination to the site. In addition, we have tendered a demand for indemnification to the former owner of our subsidiary that may have transacted business with the facility and are exploring the existence and applicability of insurance policies that could mitigate potential exposure. As of June 30, 2011 and September 30, 2010, we have not recorded a reserve for this matter, as we believe the likelihood of our responsibility for damages is not probable and a potential range of exposure is not estimable.
Insurance
We are subject to large deductibles ranging from $100 to $350 on our property and casualty and worker's compensation insurance policies. As a result, many of our claims are effectively self-insured. Many claims against our insurance are in the form of litigation. At June 30, 2011, we had $5,955 accrued for self-insurance liabilities, including $1,278 for general liability coverage losses. We are also subject to construction defect liabilities, primarily within our Residential segment. We believe the likely range of our potential liability for construction defects is from $250 to $750. As of June 30, 2011, we had reserved $371 for these claims.
Some of our insurance carriers require us to post letters of credit as a means of guaranteeing performance under our policies. If an insurance carrier has reasonable cause to effect payment under a letter of credit, we would be required to reimburse the lenders under our Revolving Credit Facility for such letter of credit. At June 30, 2011, $7,481 of our outstanding letters of credit was used to collateralize our high deductible insurance programs.
Sureties
As is common in the surety industry, sureties issue bonds on a project-by-project basis and can decline to issue bonds at any time. We believe that our relationships with our sureties will allow us to provide surety bonds as they are required. However, current market conditions, as well as changes in our sureties' assessment of our operating and financial risk, could cause our sureties to decline to issue bonds for our work. If our sureties decline to issue bonds for our work, our alternatives would include posting other forms of collateral for project performance, such as letters of credit or cash, seeking bonding capacity from other sureties, or engaging in more projects that do not require surety bonds. In addition, if we are awarded a project for which a surety bond is required but we are unable to obtain a surety bond, the result can be a claim for damages by the customer for the costs of replacing us with another contractor.
Many customers, particularly in connection with new construction, require us to post performance and payment bonds issued by a surety. Those bonds provide a guarantee to the customer that we will perform under the terms of our contract and that we will pay our subcontractors and vendors. If we fail to perform under the terms of our contract or to pay subcontractors and vendors, the customer may demand that the surety make payments or provide services under the bond. We must reimburse the sureties for any expenses or outlays they incur on our behalf. To date, we have not been required to make any reimbursements to our sureties for bond-related costs. As of June 30, 2011, the estimated cost to complete our bonded projects was approximately $113,644. We believe we have adequate remaining available bonding capacity to meet our current needs; however, the duration, size, and aggregate number of outstanding bonds are subject to the sole discretion of our surety providers at any point in time. There can be no assurance that the current bonding facility will be available to us in the future.
As of June 30, 2011, we utilized cash and accumulated interest thereon (as included in Other Non-Current Assets in our Consolidated Balance Sheet) of $3,985 to collateralize our obligations to our former sureties. On March 14, 2011, a former surety released $2,600 of cash back to the Company. We evaluate our bonding requirements on a regular basis, including the terms offered by our sureties. On May 7, 2010, we entered into agreements with two primary sureties. We do not have any cash or letters of credit held as collateral by these sureties.
Other Commitments and Contingencies
Between October 2004 and September 2005, we sold all or substantially all of the assets of certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries. These sales were made to facilitate the business needs and purposes of the organization as a whole. Since we were a consolidator of electrical contracting businesses, often the best candidate to purchase these assets was a previous owner of the assets who usually was still associated with the subsidiary, often as an officer of that subsidiary, or otherwise. To facilitate the desired timing, the sales were made with more than ordinary reliance on the representations of the purchaser who was, in those cases, often the person most familiar with the business sold. As these sales were assets sales, rather than stock sales, we may be required to fulfill obligations that were assigned or sold to others, if the purchaser is unwilling or unable to perform the transferred liabilities. If this were to occur, we would seek reimbursement from the purchasers. These potential liabilities will continue to diminish over time. As of June 30, 2011, all projects transferred have been completed. To date, we have not been required to perform on any projects sold under this divestiture program.
From time to time, we may enter into firm purchase commitments for materials such as copper or aluminum wire which we expect to use in the ordinary course of business. These commitments are typically for terms less than one year and require us to buy minimum quantities of materials at specific intervals at a fixed price over the term. As of June 30, 2011, we had no such open purchase commitments.