XML 43 R29.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.0.1

Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters | 16. Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters Retirement of Brian Evans as Chief Executive Officer On December 11, 2024, Brian Evans, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, provided notice to the Company of his retirement effective December 31, 2024 (the “Separation Date”). Mr. Evans and GEO entered into a Separation Agreement and General Release on December 13, 2024 (the “Separation Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Separation Agreement, Mr. Evans will be entitled to receive the following in addition to accrued wages: (i) the payment of $85,834 per month commencing on the Separation Date and continuing through December 31, 2026; (ii) the payment of his annual performance award for the year ending December 31, 2024, which will be paid in 2025, at the same time and under the same terms as other GEO executives: (iii) the benefits described in Section 5 of his employment agreement for Mr. Evans and his covered dependents for a period of five years after the Separation Date; (iv) all of the Company’s interest in any automobile used by Mr. Evans pursuant to the Company’s Executive Automobile Policy (the “Executive Automobile Policy”) and the Company shall pay the balance of any outstanding loan or lease on such automobile; (v) all outstanding unvested stock options and restricted stock granted to Mr. Evans prior to his retirement will fully vest immediately upon the Separation Date, provided, however that any restricted stock that is still subject to performance-based vesting shall vest when and to the extent the Compensation Committee certifies that the performance goals are actually met; and (vi) the payment of reasonable legal fees and costs incurred by Mr. Evans in connection with the Separation Agreement up to $25,000. The Separation Agreement also contains a mutual release, confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions. Appointment of J. David Donahue as Chief Executive Officer J. David Donahue was appointed Chief Executive Officer on December 16, 2024, effective January 1, 2025. Mr. Donahue joined GEO as the Eastern Region Vice President in 2009 after a career in corrections with the States of Indiana and Kentucky as well as the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Mr. Donahue was promoted to Senior Vice President and President, GEO Corrections and Detention in January 2016 and served in that position until he retired in July 2020. Mr. Donahue served as a consultant to GEO from July 2020 through July 2023. In connection with his appointment, Mr. Donahue and the Company entered into an Executive Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) on December 16, 2024 to provide that Mr. Donahue will be employed by the Company for a two-year term beginning January 1, 2025 (the “Effective Date”). The term of the Employment Agreement may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties on an annual basis subject to the termination provisions in the Employment Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement, Mr. Donahue will serve as Chief Executive Officer and report directly to the Executive Chairman. Either Mr. Donahue or the Company may terminate Mr. Donahue’s employment under the Employment Agreement for any reason upon not less than thirty (30) days written notice. Under the terms of the Employment Agreement, Mr. Donahue will be paid an annual base salary of $1,000,000, subject to the review and potential increase in the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee. Mr. Donahue will also be entitled to receive a target annual performance award of 100% of Mr. Donahue’s base salary and be entitled to receive an annual equity incentive award of restricted stock with a grant date fair value equal to at least 100% of Mr. Donahue’s base salary that shall vest upon the attainment of certain performance goals in accordance with the terms of the Company’s equity compensation plan. The Employment Agreement provides that upon the separation of employment by Mr. Donahue for good reason, by the Company without cause or upon the death or disability of Mr. Donahue, he will be entitled to receive a separation payment equal to one (1) times the sum of his annual base salary. The Company will also continue to provide Mr. Donahue and any covered dependents with the Executive Benefits as defined in the Employment Agreement for a period of eighteen (18) months after the date of separation. In the event of Mr. Donahue’s death within such eighteen (18) month period, the Company will continue to provide the Executive Benefits to Mr. Donahue’s covered dependents, and, if applicable to Mr. Donahue’s estate. In addition, the Employment Agreement provides that upon such separation, GEO will transfer all of its interest in any automobile used by Mr. Donahue pursuant to the Executive Automobile Policy and pay the balance of any outstanding loans or leases on such automobile so that Mr. Donahue owns the automobile outright. In the event such automobile is leased, GEO will pay the residual cost of the lease. Lastly, all of the outstanding and unvested stock options and restricted stock granted to Mr. Donahue prior to separation will fully vest immediately upon separation; provided, however that any restricted stock that is subject to performance-based vesting shall only vest when and to the extent the Compensation Committee certifies that the performance goals are actually met. Upon a separation of employment by GEO for cause or by Mr. Donahue without good reason, Mr. Donahue will be entitled to only the amount of compensation that is due through the effective date of the separation. Except that if Mr. Donahue’s separation from his employment is the result of his retirement in accordance with the Company’s then-current Senior Officer Retirement Plan (the “Retirement Plan”), all of the outstanding unvested stock options and restricted stock granted to Mr. Donahue prior to his retirement will fully vest immediately as of the date of his retirement; provided however, that any restricted stock that is still subject to performance-based vesting at the time of his retirement shall only vest when and to the extent the Compensation Committee certifies that the performance goals are actually met, and provided that Mr. Donahue remains in full compliance with the restrictive covenants set forth in the Employment Agreement. The Employment Agreement also provides that termination of the Employment Agreement for any reason shall not affect Mr. Donahue’s rights under the then applicable Retirement Plan. Mr. Donahue began receiving the retirement benefits he was eligible for upon his retirement in July 2020 pursuant to the terms of the Retirement Plan. GEO will suspend the payment of retirement benefits while Mr. Donahue is employed as Chief Executive Officer. The Employment Agreement includes a non-competition covenant that runs through the three-year period following the separation of the executive’s employment, and confidentiality and work product provisions. Collective Bargaining Agreements The Company had approximately 57% of its workforce covered by collective bargaining agreements at December 31, 2024. Collective bargaining agreements with 17% of employees are set to expire in less than one year. Contract Developments On February 27, 2025, the Company announced that it has been awarded a 15-year, fixed price contract by ICE to provide support services for the establishment of a federal immigration processing center at its company-owned, 1000-bed Delaney Hall Facility in Newark, New Jersey. GEO’s support services include the exclusive use of the Facility by ICE, along with security, maintenance, and food services, as well as access to recreational amenities, medical care, and legal counsel. In the first weeks of the new Administration, President Trump issued an Executive Order reversing the prior Administration's Executive Order that had directed the U.S. Attorney General to not renew U.S. Department of Justice contracts with privately-operated criminal detention facilities. In January of 2025, the United States District Court for the Central District of California lifted the long-standing intake restrictions at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, which dated back to the early days of the COVID pandemic. During the fourth quarter of 2024, Contracts for the Company's 1,940-bed Adelanto ICE Processing Center; 400-bed Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center; 750-bed Desert View Annex; and 700-bed Golden State Annex were renewed for five-year terms through December of 2029. Commitments As of December 31, 2024, the Company had contractually required commitments for a number of projects using existing Company financing facilities. The Company’s management estimates that these existing contractually required capital projects will cost approximately $76.3 million, of which $51.8 million was spent through 2024. The Company estimates the remaining capital requirements related to these contractually required capital projects to be approximately $24.5 million. These projects are expected to be completed through 2025. In addition to these current estimated capital requirements, the Company is currently in the process of bidding on, or evaluating potential bids for the design, construction and management of a number of new projects. In the event that the Company wins bids for these projects and decides to self-finance their construction, its capital requirements could materially increase. Litigation, Claims and Assessments Shareholder and Derivative Litigation On July 7, 2020, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its current and former officers George C. Zoley and Brian R. Evans in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The parties resolved this matter following mediation for a payment to a settlement class of $3 million paid by the Company's insurance carrier. On November 17, 2023, the court entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice approving the settlement. After the putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed, three related putative shareholder derivative actions were also filed. These cases generally alleged breaches of fiduciary duties premised on alleged materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions related to pending litigation, as alleged in the shareholder class action. First, on July 1, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed by Anning Fang, a purported stockholder, in Palm Beach County, Florida Circuit Court against the Company, as well as current and former Company directors and officers George C. Zoley, Jose Gordo, Brian R. Evans, Ann M. Schlarb, Richard H. Glanton, Anne N. Foreman, Christopher C. Wheeler, Julie M. Wood, Guido van Hauwermeiren, Scott M. Kernan, and Duane Helkowski (collectively, the “State-Court Defendants”). Second, on November 12, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed by Rui Zhang, a purported stockholder, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, the State-Court Defendants, as well as then current and former Company officers David Venturella and J. David Donahue (collectively, the “Derivative Defendants”). Third, on August 24, 2022, a putative stockholder derivative complaint was filed by Gerardo Maldonado Jr., a purported stockholder, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company and the Derivative Defendants. The state-court Fang complaint alleged breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the State-Court Defendants relating to purported healthcare and quality of care deficiencies, an allegedly inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, alleged forced labor by detainees, and alleged exposure to pending litigation, which purportedly led to damage to GEO. The Zhang and Maldonado federal-court complaints make similar allegations of breach of fiduciary duty as to the Derivative Defendants, asserted claims for unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets, and also alleged that the Derivative Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that Mr. Zoley contributed to alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. Following mediation, the Zhang parties reached an agreement to resolve all derivative claims with the Company agreeing to adopt certain corporate governance policies. On September 6, 2024, the Zhang court entered an Order Approving Final Settlement and Final Judgment. The approval of the settlement by the Zhang court released all of the claims asserted in the Fang and Maldonado complaints as well. Thus, the Fang parties and the Maldonado parties agreed to dismissals with prejudice of those respective derivative actions. On November 7, 2024, following a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, the Fang court entered a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. Similarly, on November 21, 2024, following a Stipulation and Proposed Order Voluntarily Dismissing Action, the Maldonado court entered an Order Closing Case and Dismissing with Prejudice. Immigration Detainee Litigation 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 Wage Act ("CMWA") and the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”). The complaint also claims that the Company was unjustly enriched based on the level of payment the detainees received for work performed in a Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") the Company is required to implement at the facility under the terms of its contract with the federal government. On July 6, 2015, the court found that detainees were not employees under the CMWA and dismissed this claim. On February 27, 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiffs' 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. On October 18, 2022, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Company’s affirmative defenses, denying the Company’s motion for summary judgment, motion to dismiss, and motion for decertification of the class, narrowing the class period for plaintiffs’ TVPA claims, and otherwise ruling against the Company’s motions for relief. All trial dates were stayed by court order pending appeal of certain of GEO's defenses to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal. Oral argument before the Tenth Circuit was held on September 18, 2023. On October 22, 2024, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order finding appellate review of GEO’s claim of immunity was premature and, therefore, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals was currently without jurisdiction to consider the merits of GEO’s claimed immunity. On January 13, 2025, GEO filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision. All trial dates remain stayed. The first of two State of Washington lawsuits, Nwauzor et al. v. GEO Group, was filed on September 26, 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. The plaintiffs claimed that State of Washington minimum wage laws should be enforced with respect to detainees who volunteer to participate in a VWP administered by GEO at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (the "Center") as required by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under the terms of GEO’s contract. The Center houses persons in the custody of federal immigration authorities while the federal government is determining their immigration status. In October 2021, an unfavorable jury verdict and court judgment resulting in a combined $23.2 million judgment entered against the Company in the retrial of the two cases, which judgment amounts were subsequently increased by a further award against the Company of attorney’s fees, costs, and pre-judgment interest in the amount of $14.4 million. Post-judgment interest is accruing on these judgments in accordance with Washington law. The trial court waived the necessity to post a supersedeas bond for the combined judgments and has stayed enforcement of the verdict and judgments while GEO’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is pending. Oral argument before the Ninth Circuit was held on October 6, 2022. On March 7, 2023, the Ninth Circuit certified certain state law questions to the Washington Supreme Court. Oral argument before the Washington Supreme Court was held on October 17, 2023. On December 21, 2023, the Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion answering the questions certified by the Ninth Circuit. Under the Ninth Circuit’s March 7, 2023 order certifying the above questions to the Washington Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit resumed control and jurisdiction over the State of Washington lawsuits. On February 21, 2024, the United States Department of Justice filed its Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of GEO, arguing that the State of Washington judgments should be reversed because the Supremacy Clause precludes application of the Washington Minimum Wage Statute to work programs for federal detainees. In its Brief, the Department of Justice asserted that application of the Washington law independently contravened intergovernmental immunity because it would make federal detainees subject to provisions that do not apply, and never have applied, to persons in state custody, singling out a contractor with the federal government for obligations Washington does not itself bear. The Department of Justice also contended that the immigration statutory structure approved by Congress does not contemplate a role for states or state law in governing the VWP for federal detainees. On January 16, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Opinion by a 2-1 vote affirming the lower court’s decision. That Opinion includes a 24-page dissenting opinion. On February 6, 2025, GEO timely filed its Petition for Rehearing En Banc. A final mandate has not been issued by the Ninth Circuit and the appeal remains pending until resolution of the Petition for Rehearing. On February 12, 2025, the United States Department of Justice filed a Motion for 30-day extension of time to file an Amicus Brief supporting GEO’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc. 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. The California lawsuit alleges violations of the state’s minimum wage laws, violations of the TVPA and California's equivalent state statute, unjust enrichment, unfair competition and retaliation. The California court has certified a class of individuals who have been civilly detained at the Company's Adelanto Facility from December 19, 2014, until the date of final judgment. On March 31, 2022, the court entered a stay until the Ninth Circuit rules on the State of Washington lawsuits. Current and former detainees of the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center and the Golden State Annex ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on July 13, 2022, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. The complaint alleges that federal detainees who volunteer to participate in the VWP at GEO’s Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex ICE facilities are employees of GEO and entitled to the state’s minimum wage. Plaintiffs also make claims for unfair competition, unjust enrichment, human trafficking, forced labor, California's Private Attorneys General Act and retaliation. GEO filed both a motion to stay the action pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in the State of Washington lawsuits and a motion to dismiss the action in its entirety. On July 10, 2023, the court entered a stay until the Ninth Circuit rules on the State of Washington lawsuits. On February 10, 2025, the Court denied plaintiffs’ request to lift the stay until the Ninth Circuit rules on GEO’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc. GEO believes it operates the VWP in full compliance with its contract with ICE and all applicable laws, regulations, and standards. GEO strongly disputes the claims made in these lawsuits, and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself from these lawsuits. GEO has not recorded any accruals relating to these lawsuits at this time as losses are not considered probable. Challenges to State Legislation that Conflict with Federal Contracts On July 13, 2023, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the State of Washington for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the State of Washington’s newly enacted law – House Bill 1470. House Bill 1470 purports to empower state agencies with new rule making, inspection, investigation, and testing powers over the Northwest ICE Processing Center. House Bill 1470 also creates a statutory regime of civil penalties applicable to private detention facilities for violations of House Bill 1470 detention standards, and purports to create a private right of action for detainees aggrieved by violations of the statute. On March 8, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington entered an order preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of House Bill 1470 against GEO as the operator of the Northwest ICE Processing Center. On April 29, 2024, the State of Washington filed a Notice of Appeal of the order preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of House Bill 1470. On February 14, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments on the State of Washington’s appeal. On April 15, 2024, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the State of New Jersey for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the State of New Jersey’s Assembly Bill 5207 – that purports to prohibit the operation of "private detention facilities" in the state, which would prevent the United States from using privately contracted detention facilities to house detainees in the custody of ICE. On April 25, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey entered an order preliminarily enjoining the State of New Jersey from enforcing Assembly Bill 5207 against a private detention facility-including any owned by Plaintiff GEO until a further Order of the Court. On October 22, 2024, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against the State of California and the Kern County Public Health Department for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the State of California’s newly enacted law – Senate Bill 1132. Senate Bill 1132 purports to empower state agencies with new inspection and investigation powers over GEO’s California facilities providing contracted services to ICE. Senate Bill 1132 also purports to impose standards prescribed by the Board of State and Community Corrections on GEO’s provision of contracted services to ICE in California. The State of California and Kern County filed a motion to dismiss on December 20, 2024. The U.S. District Court is scheduled to hear arguments on GEO’s motion for declaratory and injunctive relief and the defendants’ motion to dismiss on March 3, 2025. Other Litigation The nature of the Company's business also exposes it to various other legal claims or litigation, including, but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement and/or mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by individuals in its care, medical malpractice claims, claims related to deaths in custody, 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 detainees, including damages arising from the escape of an individual in its care or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. Legal proceedings with respect to our facilities are unpredictable and, where material, can cause adverse effects, such as prompting modification or even termination of the underlying facility management contracts. Other Assessment A New Mexico 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 that was 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 Company appealed the administrative ruling. In February 2024, the Company received notice that the New Mexico Court of Appeals had ruled against its appeal. The Company appealed this ruling to the New Mexico Supreme Court by timely filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on April 19, 2024. On July 8, 2024, the New Mexico Supreme Court denied the Company's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Company had established an estimated liability (inclusive of both the audit period and the post-audit period) based on its estimate of the most probable loss based on the facts and circumstances known and the advice of outside counsel in connection with this matter. In July 2024, the Company made a payment of approximately $18.9 million towards the estimated liability related to the assessment for the audited period. Following the submission of an application in September 2024, the Company was accepted to participate in the State's managed audit program and entered into a Managed Audit Agreement (the "Agreement") with the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department for the post-audit period. The Agreement provides for a waiver of penalties and interest and as such, the Company recorded a favorable adjustment for penalties and interest related to the post-audit period of approximately $6.3 million in the third quarter of 2024. The managed audit is ongoing at this time. Accruals for Legal Proceedings 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, including the modification or loss of one or more facility management contracts, or could result in a material impairment of the Company’s assets. The Company's accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. The Company generally does not accrue for anticipated legal fees and costs but expenses those items as incurred.

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://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration