11.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Lease Commitments

We lease operating facilities and equipment in the ordinary course of our business under various operating leases with monthly payments varying up to $26. Future minimum lease payments are recognized on a straight-line basis over the minimum lease term. Total rent expense under operating leases charged to operations was $5,651, $5,372 and $5,213 in fiscal years 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancellable operating leases as of April 30, 2014 are as follows:


2015	$	11,279
2016		10,175
2017		9,453
2018		9,678
2019		11,723
Thereafter		98,562

Total minimum lease payments	$	150,870

Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of our business and as a result of the extensive governmental regulation of the solid waste industry, we are subject to various judicial and administrative proceedings involving state and local agencies. In these proceedings, an agency may seek to impose fines or to revoke or deny renewal of an operating permit held by us. From time to time, we may also be subject to actions brought by special interest or other groups, adjacent landowners or residents in connection with the permitting and licensing of landfills and transfer stations, or alleging environmental damage or violations of the permits and licenses pursuant to which we operate. In addition, we have been named defendants in various claims and suits pending for alleged damages to persons and property, alleged violations of certain laws and alleged liabilities arising out of matters occurring during the ordinary operation of the waste management business.

In accordance with FASB ASC 450-20, we accrue for legal proceedings when losses become probable and reasonably estimable. As of the end of each applicable reporting period, we review each of our legal proceedings to determine whether it is probable, reasonably possible or remote that a liability has been incurred and, if it is at least reasonably possible, whether a range of loss can be reasonably estimated under the provisions of FASB ASC 450-20. In instances where we determine that a loss is probable and we can reasonably estimate a range of loss we may incur with respect to such a matter, we record an accrual for the amount within the range that constitutes our best estimate of the possible loss. 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 record an accrual in the amount that is the low end of such range. When a loss is reasonably possible, but not probable, we will not record an accrual, but we will disclose our estimate of the possible range of loss where such estimate can be made in accordance with ASC 450-20.

Environmental Remediation Liability

We are subject to liability for environmental damage, including personal injury and property damage, that our solid waste, recycling and power generation facilities may cause to neighboring property owners, particularly as a result of the contamination of drinking water sources or soil, possibly including damage resulting from conditions existing before we acquired the facilities. We may also be subject to liability for similar claims arising from off-site environmental contamination caused by pollutants or hazardous substances if we or our predecessors arrange or arranged to transport, treat or dispose of those materials. The following matters represent our potential or outstanding material claims.

Potsdam Environmental Remediation Liability

On December 20, 2000, the State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) issued an Order on Consent (“Order”) which named Waste-Stream, Inc. (“WSI”), our subsidiary, General Motors Corporation (“GM”) and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (“NiMo”) as Respondents. The Order required that the Respondents undertake certain work on a 25-acre scrap yard and solid waste transfer station owned by WSI, including the preparation of a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“Study”). A draft of the Study was submitted to the DEC in January 2009 (followed by a final report in May 2009). The Study estimated that the undiscounted costs associated with implementing the preferred remedies would be approximately $10,219. On February 28, 2011, the DEC issued a Proposed Remedial Action Plan for the site and accepted public comments on the proposed remedy through March 29, 2011. We submitted comments to the DEC on this matter. In April 2011, the DEC issued the final Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the site. The ROD was subsequently rescinded by the DEC for failure to respond to all submitted comments. The preliminary ROD, however, estimated that the present cost associated with implementing the preferred remedies would be approximately $12,130. The DEC issued the final ROD in June 2011 with proposed remedies consistent with its earlier ROD. An Order on Consent and Administrative Settlement naming WSI and NiMo as Respondents was executed by the Respondents and the DEC with an effective date of October 25, 2013. It is unlikely that any costs relating to onsite remediation will be incurred until fiscal year 2016.

WSI is jointly and severally liable for the total cost to remediate and we initially expected to be responsible for approximately 30% of such costs pursuant to a cost-sharing agreement with NiMo and GM. Based on these estimates, we recorded an environmental remediation charge of $2,823 in the third quarter of fiscal year 2009. In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009, we recognized an additional charge of $1,532, representing an additional 15% of the estimated costs, in recognition of the deteriorating financial condition and eventual bankruptcy filing of GM. In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010, we recognized an additional charge of $335 based on changes in the expected timing of cash outflows. Based on the estimated costs in the ROD, and changes in the estimated timing of cash flows, we recorded an environmental remediation charge of $549 in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011. Such charges could be significantly higher if costs exceed estimates. We inflate these estimated costs in current dollars until the expected time of payment and discount the total cost to present value using a risk free interest rate of 2.0%. As of April 30, 2014 and 2013, we have recorded liabilities of $5,320 and $5,297, including the recognition of $19 and $138 of accretion expense in fiscal years 2014 and 2013, respectively.

In September 2011, the DEC settled its environmental claim against the estate of the former GM (known as “Motors Liquidation Trust”) for future remediation costs relating to the WSI site for face value of $3,000. In addition, in November 2011 we settled our own claim against the Motors Liquidation Trust for face value of $100. These claims will be paid by GM in warrants to obtain stock of the reorganized GM. We began receiving the warrants in May 2013 and at this time there is no way to accurately estimate when the remainder of these claims will be paid. We have not assumed that any future proceeds from the sale of securities received in payment of these claims will reduce our exposure.

Southbridge Landfill Environmental Remediation Liability

On or about August 24, 2013, we experienced the movement of stockpiled earth at our Southbridge landfill in Southbridge, Massachusetts. The stockpiled materials consisted of soil removed and relocated to create space for the construction of additional landfill airspace at our Southbridge landfill. The earth had been relocated and stored during the fall, winter and spring construction season of fiscal year 2013.

The movement caused some of the stockpiled earth to enter wetlands on property owned by us. On or about August 29, 2013, we notified the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MADEP”), and the Towns of Southbridge and Charlton, Massachusetts, of the occurrence of the movement. On or about September 6, 2013, MADEP issued a “Unilateral Administrative Order” (“UAO”) requiring us to provide MADEP with a plan to remove any materials deposited in the wetlands as a result of the movement (“Plan”). On or about October 3, 2013, we submitted the Plan to MADEP, and on or about October 15, 2013, MADEP approved the Plan and verbally issued permission for us to implement the Plan. We are currently implementing the Plan under the supervision of MADEP.

In January 2014, we received correspondence from the Massachusetts’ Office of the Attorney General (“MAAG”), advising us that the MAAG intends to schedule a meeting with us to discuss this incident, and to possibly file suit against us for violation of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection, Clean Air and Solid Waste Acts. We met with the MAAG in March 2014 to discuss our ongoing remediation effort and the parties have initiated discussions regarding the resolution of this matter.

We anticipate that execution of the Plan and related matters will involve remediation costs of $2,100 and such costs could be higher if actual costs exceed estimates. We have provided our insurer with notice of the Plan, and the costs expended by us to date to comply with the Plan. We have also provided notice to certain of our contractors and technical advisors that the movement has occurred, that significant remediation costs will be incurred in executing the Plan and related matters, and that we expect our contractors and technical advisors to assist in the execution of the Plan and related matters, to share in the remediation costs as responsible parties, and to provide notice to their own insurers. We believe that a loss in the range of $400 to $2,100, after taking into account amounts we expect to be reimbursed by our insurer and other third-parties, is probable and have therefore recorded a charge of $400 in fiscal year 2014 as an environmental remediation charge.

On or about April 25, 2014, we notified MADEP and other interested parties that areas of sloughing had occurred in a plateau created as part of new cell construction at our Southbridge landfill. Some of the same contractors and technical advisors that were involved in the initial movement of stockpiled earth are also involved in the new cell construction that includes this area of sloughing. We repaired the areas of sloughing on April 25, 2014 and no damage occurred in the abutting wetlands. On May 9, 2014, MADEP issued a UAO directing us to ensure that the areas of sloughing at the plateau were repaired and to take steps to ensure that there would be no incursion into the wetlands, and requiring that we undertake corrective actions to ensure the stability of the plateau. Prior to MADEP’s issuance of the latest UAO, we were in the process of awarding a contract to a soil remediation company to undertake and ensure such stability at the plateau. We needed MADEP to issue permits in order for this work to be finalized. We filed a written notice of claim for an adjudicatory hearing with respect to the efficacy of MADEP’s issuance of the latest UAO, but the parties have reached a tentative resolution of the issues raised by MADEP’s issuance of the latest UAO, and the parties are finalizing a Stipulation that will include the withdrawal by us of our notice of claim for an adjudicatory hearing.

The total expected environmental remediation payments, in today’s dollars, for each of the five succeeding fiscal years and the aggregate amount thereafter are as follows:


2015	$	45
2016		3,399
2017		1,029
2018		27
2019		42
Thereafter		750

Total	$	5,292

A reconciliation of the expected aggregate uninflated, undiscounted environmental remediation liability to the amount recognized in the statement of financial position as of April 30, 2014 is as follows:


Undiscounted liability	$	5,292
Plus inflation / (discount)		28

Liability balance – April 30, 2014	$	5,320

Any substantial liability incurred by us arising from environmental damage could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We are not presently aware of any other situations that would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Employment Contracts

We have entered into employment contracts with four of our executive officers. Contracts are dated June 18, 2001, March 31, 2006, July 6, 2010 and September 1, 2012. Each contract had an initial term between one and three years and a covenant not-to-compete ranging from one to two years from the date of termination. These contracts automatically extend for a one year period at the end of the initial term and any renewal period. Total annual commitments for salaries under these contracts are $1,397. In the event of a change in control of us, or in the event of involuntary termination without cause, the employment contracts provide for a payment ranging from one to three years of salary and bonuses. We also have other employment contracts or arrangements with employees who are not executive officers.