XML 30 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation, Claims and Assessments On July 7, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George C. Zoley (“Mr. Zoley”), and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans (“Mr. Evans”), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On October 1, 2020, the Court entered an unopposed order appointing lead plaintiffs, approving the selection of counsel, dismissing the initial complaint, and setting a deadline for the filing of an amended complaint. On November 18, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans––as well as J. David Donahue (“Mr. Donahue”), the Company’s former Senior Vice President and President of the U.S. Secure Services division, and Ann M. Schlarb (“Ms. Schlarb”), the Company’s Senior Vice President and President of the GEO Care division––made materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions related to GEO’s business––including quality of operations, corporate social responsibility, competitive strengths, business strategies, health and safety, sources of financing, dividend expectations, and COVID-19 procedures. The amended complaint is brought by lead plaintiffs James Michael DeLoach and Edward Oketola, individually and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities––other than the defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which the defendants have or had a controlling interest––who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during the alleged class period from November 7, 2018 to August 5, 2020, inclusive. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that Messrs. Zoley, Evans, and Donahue and Ms. Schlarb violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint seeks damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On December 18, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 19, 2021, and defendants’ reply was filed on February 2, 2021. The motion to dismiss is now fully briefed. As previously reported and described in the Company's periodic reports, including most recently in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”). The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched because of the level of payment the detainees received for work performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program that are at issue in the case are authorized by the Federal government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress. On July 6, 2015, the court found that detainees were not employees under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class’ motion for class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three similar lawsuits have been filed - two in Washington and one in California. The first of the two Washington lawsuits was filed on September 9, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9, 2017. In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of California. All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective state’s minimum wage laws. However, the California lawsuit, like the Colorado suit, also includes claims that the Company violated the TVPA and California's equivalent state statute. The California court certified a nationwide class which would allow the plaintiffs to primarily seek injunctive relief or policy changes at a number of facilities if they are successful on the merits of their claims. On July 2, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Washington Attorney General’s Tacoma lawsuit based on the Company’s position that its legal defenses prevent the case from proceeding to trial. The federal court in Washington denied the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on August 6, 2019. However, on August 20, 2019, the United States Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest, which asked the Washington court to revisit its prior denial of the Company's intergovernmental immunity defense in the case. While the Washington court ultimately elected not to dismiss the case at the time, its order importantly declared that the Company's intergovernmental immunity defense was legally viable, to be ultimately determined at trial. After putting them on “standby” for most of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial court entered an order setting both suits for an estimated three-week trial beginning June 1, 2021. The court ordered a remote trial, but with the possibility of in-person proceedings. The order notes the Company’s exception to the remote trial setting. The Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the judge’s order setting a remote trial on April 8, 2021, requesting that the trial date be moved from June 1, 2021 to the earliest possible date after July 1, 2021, when the State of Washington plans to allow in-person trials to resume. On April 9, 2021, the Washington court denied the motion for reconsideration for an in-person trial, ruling that a “hybrid” trial, with some parts being conducted in-person with COVID-19 precautions, will begin on June 1, 2021. On April 28, 2021, the court ruled that the entire trial will be conducted remotely. The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and claims in these lawsuits. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the lawsuits. On December 30, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging California’s newly enacted law - Assembly Bill 32 (AB-32) - which bars the federal government from engaging the Company or any other government contractors to provide detention services for illegal immigrants. The Company’s claims, as described in the lawsuit, are grounded in authoritative legal doctrine that under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the federal government is free from regulation by any state. By prohibiting federal detention facilities in California, the suit argues AB-32 substantially interferes with the ability of U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”) and ICE to carry out detention responsibilities for the federal government. Secondly, because AB-32 creates exceptions to the State of California when using the Company or any government contractors (to alleviate overcrowding), California’s statute unlawfully discriminates against the federal government. On December 31, 2019, GEO filed its motion for a preliminary injunction restraining California’s Governor and Attorney General from enforcing AB-32 against the Company’s detention facilities on behalf of USMS and ICE. On January 24, 2020, the United States filed a lawsuit challenging AB-32. The court heard motions for preliminary injunction from the Company and the United States on July 16, 2020. The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing and indicated it wouldrender an opinion sometime after the filing deadline of August 18, 2020. On July 20, 2020 the court consolidated both lawsuits. On October 8, 2020, the court issued an order granting, in part, and denying in part, the Company and the Untied State’s motions and California’s motion to dismiss. Among other findings, the court (1) dismissed the Company’s intergovernmental immunity claims as well as the United States’ preemption claims as applied to ICE facilities; (2) found that the Company and the United States were likely to succeed on the preemption claims as applied to U.S. Marshals’ facilities and enjoined enforcing AB-32 against those facilities; and (3) refused to enjoin California from enforcing AB-32 against ICE contracts with the Company and the United States. The Company and the United States have appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument is set for June 7, 2021. On April 29, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the State of Washington’s newly enacted law – House Bill 1090 (EHB 1090) – that purports to prohibit the United States from using detention facilities operated by private contractors to house detainees in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Company establishes accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, the results of these claims or proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these claims or proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company's accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. The Company does not accrue for anticipated legal fees and costs but expenses those items as incurred. The nature of the Company's business exposes it to various types of third-party legal claims or litigation against the Company, including, but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement and/or mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or detainees, medical malpractice claims, product liability claims, intellectual property infringement claims, claims relating to employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile liability claims, indemnification claims by its customers and other third parties, contractual claims and claims for personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with the Company's facilities, programs, electronic monitoring products, personnel or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoner's escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. The Company accrues for legal costs associated with loss contingencies when those costs are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company does not expect the outcome of any pending claims or legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Other Assessment A state non-income tax audit completed in 2016 included tax periods for which the state tax authority had previously processed a substantial tax refund. At the completion of the audit fieldwork, the Company received a notice of audit findings disallowing deductions that were previously claimed by the Company, approved by the state tax authority and served as the basis for the approved refund claim. In early January 2017, the Company received a formal Notice of Assessment of Taxes and Demand for Payment from the taxing authority disallowing the deductions. The total tax, penalty and interest related to the assessment is approximately $19.4 million. The Company is appealing an administrative ruling and disagrees with the assessment and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend its position. The Company has established a reserve based on its estimate of the most probable loss based on the facts and circumstances known to date and the advice of outside counsel in connection with this matter. CARES Act On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) was enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act, among other things, allows employers to defer the deposit and payment of the employer's share of Social Security taxes. The deferral applies to deposits and payments of the employer’s share of Social Security tax that would otherwise be required to be made during the period beginning on March 27, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020. The deferred amounts are due to be paid in two equal installments on December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2022. As a result of the CARES Act, the Company has deferred the payment of approximately $42.1 million related to these payroll taxes as of March 31, 2021. Commitments The Company currently has contractual commitments for a number of projects using Company financing. The Company’s management estimates that the cost of these existing active capital projects will be approximately $47.5 million of which $34.6 million was spent through the first three months of 2021. The Company estimates the remaining capital requirements related to these capital projects will be $12.9 million which will be spent through the remainder of 2021. Idle Facilities As of March 31, 2021, the Company was marketing eight of its idle facilities to potential customers. The carrying values of these idle facilities are included in Property and Equipment, Net in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The following table summarizes each of the idled facilities and their respective carrying values, excluding equipment and other assets that can be easily transferred for use at other facilities. There was no indication of impairment related to the Company's idle facilities at March 31, 2021.
|  |  |  | Design |  |  |  |  | Net Carrying Value |
Facility |  | Segment |  | Capacity |  |  | Date Idled |  | 3/31/2021 |
D. Ray James Correctional Facility |  | Secure Services |  |  | 1,900 |  |  | 2021 |  | $ | 53,946 |
Moshannon Valley Correctional Facility |  | Secure Services |  |  | 1,878 |  |  | 2021 |  |  | 56,470 |
Rivers Correctional Facility |  | Secure Services |  |  | 1,450 |  |  | 2021 |  |  | 40,733 |
Queens Detention Facility |  | Secure Services |  |  | 222 |  |  | 2021 |  |  | 17,192 |
McFarland Female Community Reentry Facility |  | Secure Services |  |  | 300 |  |  | 2020 |  |  | 11,975 |
Perry County Correctional Facility |  | Secure Services |  |  | 690 |  |  | 2015 |  |  | 11,442 |
Coleman Hall |  | GEO Care |  |  | 350 |  |  | 2017 |  |  | 8,425 |
Cheyenne Mountain Recovery Center |  | GEO Care |  |  | 750 |  |  | 2020 |  |  | 17,542 |
Total |  |  |  |  | 7,540 |  |  |  |  | $ | 217,725 |

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 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration