XML 47 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies We are involved in various legal proceedings that have arisen in the normal course of operations, including the proceedings summarized below. We provide for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount is reasonably estimable. Administrative costs related to these matters are expensed as incurred. The effect of the outcome of these matters on our financial statements cannot be predicted with certainty as any such effect depends on the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. Other than the litigation described below, we do not believe that any of our outstanding litigation would have a material adverse effect on our business or prospects. Environmental. We are subject to a wide variety of laws and regulations concerning the protection of the environment, both with respect to the operations at many of our properties and with respect to remediating environmental conditions that may exist at our own or other properties. We accrue for environmental expenses resulting from existing conditions that relate to past operations when the costs are probable and reasonably estimable. In the acquisition agreement pursuant to which a predecessor to Tyco International plc, now Johnson Controls International plc (“Tyco”), sold our businesses to a previous owner in August 1999, Tyco agreed to indemnify us and our affiliates, among other things, for all “Excluded Liabilities.” Excluded Liabilities include, among other things, substantially all liabilities relating to the time prior to August 1999, including environmental liabilities. The indemnity survives indefinitely. Tyco’s indemnity does not cover liabilities to the extent caused by us or the operation of our businesses after August 1999, nor does it cover liabilities arising with respect to businesses or sites acquired after August 1999. Since 2007, Tyco has engaged in multiple corporate restructurings, split-offs and divestitures. While none of these transactions directly affects the indemnification obligations of the Tyco indemnitors under the 1999 acquisition agreement, the result of such transactions is that the assets of, and control over, such Tyco indemnitors has changed. Should any of these Tyco indemnitors become financially unable or fail to comply with the terms of the indemnity, we may be responsible for such obligations or liabilities. On July 13, 2010, Rohcan Investments Limited, the former owner of property leased by Mueller Canada Ltd. and located in Milton, Ontario, filed suit against Mueller Canada Ltd. and its directors seeking C$10.0 million in damages arising from the defendants’ alleged environmental contamination of the property and breach of lease. Mueller Canada Ltd. leased the property from 1988 through 2008. We are pursuing indemnification from a former owner for certain potential liabilities that are alleged in this lawsuit, and we have accrued for other liabilities not covered by indemnification. On December 7, 2011, the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The purchaser of U.S. Pipe has been identified as a “potentially responsible party” (“PRP”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act in connection with a former manufacturing facility operated by U.S. Pipe that was in the vicinity of a proposed Superfund site located in North Birmingham, Alabama. Under the terms of the acquisition agreement relating to our sale of U.S. Pipe, we agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain environmental liabilities, including those arising out of the former manufacturing site in North Birmingham. Accordingly, the purchaser tendered the matter to us for indemnification, which we accepted. Ultimate liability for the site will depend on many factors that have not yet been determined, including the determination of EPA’s remediation costs, the number and financial viability of the other PRPs (there are four other PRPs currently) and the determination of the final allocation of the costs among the PRPs. Since the amounts of such costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, no amounts have been accrued for this matter at March 31, 2020. Walter Energy. On November 18, 2019, we paid approximately $22.2 million to the IRS in final settlement of a tax dispute related to our former parent company, Walter Energy, Inc., as described more fully in Note 17. to our Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2019. Chapman v. Mueller Water Products, et al. In 2017, our warranty analyses identified that certain Technologies radio products produced prior to 2017 and installed in particularly harsh environments had been failing at higher than expected rates. During the quarter ended March 31, 2017, we conducted additional testing of these products and revised our estimates of warranty expenses. As a result, we recorded additional warranty expense of $9.8 million in the second quarter of 2017. During the quarter ended June 30, 2018, we completed a similar analysis and determined, based on this new information, that certain other Technologies products had been failing at higher-than-expected rates as well and that the average cost to repair or replace certain products under warranty was higher than previously estimated. As a result, in the third quarter of 2018, we recorded additional warranty expense of $14.1 million associated with such products. Related to the above warranty expenses, on April 11, 2019, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against Mueller Water Products, Inc. and certain of our former and current officers (collectively, the “Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The proposed class consists of all persons and entities that acquired our securities between May 9, 2016 and August 6, 2018 (the “Class Period”). The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including, among other things, that we made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects during the proposed Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs but does not specify the amount. Accordingly, we cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any cost or liabilities related to this matter and therefore no amounts have been accrued related to this matter as of December 31, 2019. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on November 1, 2019 and second motion to dismiss (in response to the second amended complaint filed on December 24, 2019) on January 31, 2020. Additionally, the parties have filed their respective briefs and await the Court’s decision. We believe the allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. However, the outcome of this legal proceeding cannot be predicted with certainty. City of Jackson, MS v. Siemens Industry, Inc., et al. On or about August 22, 2013, Mueller Systems, LLC (“Mueller Systems”) entered into an agreement with Siemens Industries, Inc (“Siemens”) to provide automated meter infrastructure (“AMI”) products and services to Siemens as part of Siemens’ project for the City of Jackson, MS (the “City”). This project included products and services, which were provided by parties other than Mueller Systems, for the City’s water treatment plants, sewer lines and billing system (the “Project”). On June 11, 2018, the City filed a lawsuit against Siemens and several of its contractors (excluding Mueller Systems) for multiple claims related to the Project, including claims for fraud, negligence, breach of implied warranty of good workmanship, negligent representation, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing (“Siemens Lawsuit”). In the Siemens Lawsuit, the City alleged damages in excess of $450.0 million. On November 12, 2019, the City filed an amended complaint, adding Mueller Systems as a defendant in the Siemens Lawsuit. In February 2020, the City dismissed all claims against Mueller Systems in the Siemens Lawsuit. On March 27, 2020, the City and Siemens executed a settlement agreement whereby Siemens agreed to pay the City $89.8 million (“Settlement Amount”) in order to settle the Siemens Lawsuit (the “Settlement”). As a result of the Settlement, Siemens is seeking to recover some or all of the Settlement Amount from Mueller Systems. Mueller Systems is reviewing the matter to determine the portion, if any, of the Settlement Amount that may be related to Mueller Systems’ AMI products and services. However, there remains a high degree of uncertainty around this matter, as well as the potential effect on Mueller Systems’ future operations, earnings, cash flows and financial condition. In the event Siemens initiates legal proceedings, we intend to vigorously defend against any such action. However, the outcome of any legal proceeding cannot be predicted with certainty. Accordingly, at this time, it is not practicable to estimate the magnitude and timing of any possible obligations or payments. Mass Shooting Event at our Henry Pratt Facility in Aurora, Illinois. On February 15, 2019, we experienced a mass shooting event at our Henry Pratt facility in Aurora, Illinois, in which five employees were killed and one employee and six law enforcement officers were injured. Various workers’ compensation claims arising from the event have been made to date, and we anticipate that additional claims may be made, and that liability under such claims, if any, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or cash flows. However, the possibility of other legal proceedings, and any related effects, arising from this event cannot be predicted with certainty. Indemnifications. We are a party to contracts in which it is common for us to agree to indemnify third parties for certain liabilities that arise out of or relate to the subject matter of the contract. In some cases, this indemnity extends to related liabilities arising from the negligence of the indemnified parties, but usually excludes any liabilities caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct. We cannot estimate the potential amount of future payments under these indemnities until events arise that would trigger a liability under the indemnities. Additionally, in connection with the sale of assets and the divestiture of businesses, such as the divestitures of U.S. Pipe and Anvil, we may agree to indemnify buyers and related parties for certain losses or liabilities incurred by these parties with respect to: (i) the representations and warranties made by us to these parties in connection with the sale and (ii) liabilities related to the pre-closing operations of the assets or business sold. Indemnities related to pre-closing operations generally include certain environmental and tax liabilities and other liabilities not assumed by these parties in the transaction. Indemnities related to the pre-closing operations of sold assets or businesses normally do not represent additional liabilities to us, but simply serve to protect these parties from potential liability associated with our obligations existing at the time of the sale. As with any liability, we have accrued for those pre-closing obligations that are considered probable and reasonably estimable. Should circumstances change, increasing the likelihood of payments related to a specific indemnity, we will accrue a liability when future payment is probable and the amount is reasonably estimable. Other Matters. We monitor and analyze our warranty experience and costs periodically and may revise our accruals as necessary. Critical factors in our analyses include warranty terms, specific claim situations, general incurred and projected failure rates, the nature of product failures, product and labor costs, and general business conditions. We are party to a number of lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business, including product liability cases for products manufactured by us or third parties. While the results of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the final outcome of such other litigation is not likely to have a materially adverse effect on our business or prospects.

X
- References No definition available. + 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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration