Commission file number 1-12154

 

 

1001 Fannin
Suite 4000
Houston, Texas 77002
(Address of principal executive offices)

 

 

(713) 512-6200

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes  þ      No  o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes  þ      No  o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  Yes  o      No  þ

 

The number of shares of Common Stock, $0.01 par value, of the registrant outstanding at October 21, 2011 was 460,330,016 (excluding treasury shares of 169,952,445).

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

See notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

See notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

See notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

 

Reclassifications

 

Certain reclassifications have been made to our prior period consolidated financial information in order to conform to the current year presentation.

 

 

Liabilities for landfill and environmental remediation costs are presented in the table below (in millions):

 

 

The changes to landfill and environmental remediation liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2010 and the nine months ended September 30, 2011 are reflected in the table below (in millions):

 

 

 

 

At several of our landfills, we provide financial assurance by depositing cash into restricted trust funds or escrow accounts for purposes of settling final capping, closure, post-closure and environmental remediation obligations. Generally, these trust funds are established to comply with statutory requirements and operating agreements and we are the sole beneficiary of the restricted balances. However, certain of the funds have been established for the benefit of both the Company and the host community in which we operate.

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

The fair value of trust funds and escrow accounts for which we are the sole beneficiary was $121 million at September 30, 2011 and is included in long-term “Other assets” in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. Our portion of the trusts that have been established for the benefit of both the Company and the host community in which we operate had an aggregate carrying value of $108 million at September 30, 2011 and are recorded in “Other receivables” and as long-term “Other assets” in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. See Note 14 for additional information related to these trusts.

 

 

The following table summarizes the major components of debt at each balance sheet date (in millions) and provides the maturities and interest rate ranges of each major category as of September 30, 2011:

 

 

Debt Classification

 

As of September 30, 2011, we had $348 million of debt maturing within the next twelve months, including U.S. $133 million under our Canadian credit facility. We have classified $123 million of these borrowings as long-term as of September 30, 2011 based on our intent and ability to refinance these borrowings on a long-term basis.

 

Debt Borrowings and Repayments

 

The significant changes in our debt balances from December 31, 2010 to September 30, 2011 are related to the following:

 

Canadian credit facility — The decrease in the carrying value is primarily due to $77 million of debt repayments during the nine months ended September 30, 2011.

 

Senior notes — In February 2011, we issued $400 million of 4.60% senior notes due March 2021. The net proceeds from the debt issuance were $396 million. We used a portion of the proceeds to repay $147 million of 7.65% senior notes that matured in March 2011. In August 2011, we issued $500 million of 2.60% senior notes due

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

September 2016. The net proceeds from the debt issuance were $497 million. A portion of the proceeds was used to repay the $100 million borrowing under our $2.0 billion revolving credit facility incurred in connection with our acquisition of Oakleaf, which is discussed below.

 

Tax-exempt bonds — We issued $80 million of tax-exempt bonds during the nine months ended September 30, 2011. The proceeds from the issuance of the bonds were deposited directly into a trust fund and may only be used for the specific purpose for which the money was raised. Accordingly, the restricted funds provided by these financing activities have not been included in “New borrowings” in our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows. During the nine months ended September 30, 2011, we repaid $25 million of our tax-exempt bonds with available cash.

 

Tax-exempt project bonds  — We repaid $30 million of tax-exempt project bonds with available cash during the nine months ended September 30, 2011.

 

Capital leases and other  — The decrease in our capital leases and other debt obligations is primarily due to the repayment of various borrowings upon their scheduled maturities.

 

Revolving Credit and Letter of Credit Facilities

 

As of September 30, 2011, we had an aggregate committed capacity of $2.5 billion for letters of credit under various credit facilities. In May 2011, we amended and restated our $2.0 billion revolving credit facility as a result of changes in market conditions, which significantly reduced the cost of the facility. We also extended the term through May 2016. Our revolving credit facility is our primary source of letter of credit capacity. Our remaining letter of credit capacity is provided under facilities with terms that extend from June 2013 to June 2015. As of September 30, 2011, we had an aggregate of $1.5 billion of letters of credit outstanding under various credit facilities. Approximately $1.0 billion of these letters of credit have been issued under our revolving credit facility. During the third quarter of 2011, we borrowed $100 million under our revolving credit facility in connection with our acquisition of Oakleaf. These borrowings were repaid with proceeds from our August 2011 issuance of senior notes. See Note 10 for additional information related to this acquisition. There were no outstanding borrowings under these credit facilities as of September 30, 2011.

 

 

The following table summarizes the fair values of derivative instruments recorded in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet (in millions):

 

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

 

We have not offset fair value amounts recognized for our derivative instruments. For information related to the methods used to measure our derivative assets and liabilities at fair value, refer to Note 13.

 

Interest Rate Derivatives

 

Interest Rate Swaps

 

We use interest rate swaps to maintain a portion of our debt obligations at variable market interest rates. As of September 30, 2011, we had approximately $6.1 billion in fixed-rate senior notes outstanding compared with $5.4 billion as of December 31, 2010. As of September 30, 2011, the interest payments on $1 billion, or 16%, of these senior notes have been swapped to variable interest rates to protect the debt against changes in fair value due to changes in benchmark interest rates, compared with $500 million, or 9%, as of December 31, 2010. The increase in the notional amount of our interest rate swaps from December 31, 2010 to September 30, 2011 was due to the execution of $600 million of interest rate swaps in March 2011 partially offset by the scheduled maturity of $100 million of interest rate swaps in March 2011.

 

We have designated our interest rate swaps as fair value hedges of our fixed-rate senior notes. Fair value hedge accounting for interest rate swap contracts has increased the carrying value of our debt instruments by $108 million as of September 30, 2011 and $79 million as of December 31, 2010.

 

Gains or losses on the derivatives as well as the offsetting losses or gains on the hedged items attributable to our interest rate swaps are recognized in current earnings. We include gains and losses on our interest rate swaps as adjustments to interest expense, which is the same financial statement line item where offsetting gains and losses on the related hedged items are recorded. The following table summarizes the fair value adjustments from interest rate swaps and the underlying hedged items on our results of operations (in millions):

 

 

We also recognize the impacts of (i) net periodic settlements of current interest on our active interest rate swaps and (ii) the amortization of previously terminated interest rate swap agreements as adjustments to interest expense. The following table summarizes the impact of periodic settlements of active swap agreements and the impact of terminated swap agreements on our results of operations (in millions):

 

 

 

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

 

Forward-Starting Interest Rate Swaps

 

In 2009, we entered into forward-starting interest rate swaps with a total notional value of $525 million to hedge the risk of changes in semi-annual interest payments due to fluctuations in the forward ten-year LIBOR swap rate for anticipated fixed-rate debt issuances in 2011, 2012 and 2014. We designated these forward-starting interest rate swaps as cash flow hedges.

 

During the first quarter of 2011, $150 million of these forward-starting interest rate swaps were terminated contemporaneously with the actual issuance of senior notes in February 2011, and we paid cash of $9 million to settle the liability related to these swap agreements. The ineffectiveness recognized upon termination of the hedges was immaterial and the related deferred loss continues to be recognized as a component of “Accumulated other comprehensive income.” The deferred loss is being amortized as an increase to interest expense over the ten-year life of the senior notes issued in February 2011 using the effective interest method. The incremental interest expense associated with these forward-starting interest rate swaps was immaterial during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011. As of September 30, 2011, the amount scheduled to be reclassified as an increase to interest expense over the next twelve months is immaterial.

 

The forward-starting interest rate swaps outstanding as of September 30, 2011 relate to anticipated debt issuances in November 2012 and March 2014. As of September 30, 2011, the fair value of these active interest rate derivatives was comprised of $68 million of long-term liabilities compared with $13 million of long-term liabilities as of December 31, 2010.

 

We recognized pre-tax and after-tax losses of $46 million and $28 million, respectively, to other comprehensive income for changes in the fair value of our forward-starting interest rate swaps during the three months ended September 30, 2011 and $53 million and $33 million, respectively, during the nine months ended September 30, 2011. We recognized pre-tax and after-tax losses of $22 million and $13 million, respectively, to other comprehensive income for changes in the fair value of our forward-starting interest rate swaps during the three months ended September 30, 2010 and $68 million and $41 million, respectively, during the nine months ended September 30, 2010. There was no significant ineffectiveness associated with these hedges during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 or 2010.

 

Treasury Rate Locks

 

In prior years, we used Treasury rate locks to secure underlying interest rates in anticipation of senior note issuances. These cash flow hedging agreements resulted in deferred losses, net of taxes, of $13 million at September 30, 2011 and $16 million at December 31, 2010, which are included in “Accumulated other comprehensive income.” These deferred losses are reclassified as an increase to interest expense over the life of the related senior note issuances, which extend through 2032. Pre-tax and after-tax amounts of $2 million and $1 million, respectively, for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2011 and September 30, 2010, and pre-tax and after-tax amounts of $6 million and $3 million, respectively, for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2011 and September 30, 2010, were reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income and into interest expense. As of September 30, 2011, $7 million (on a pre-tax basis) is scheduled to be reclassified as an increase to interest expense over the next twelve months.

 

Credit-Risk-Related Contingent Features

 

Certain of our interest rate derivative instruments contain provisions related to the Company’s credit rating. If the Company’s credit rating were to fall to specified levels below investment grade, the counterparties have the ability to terminate the derivative agreements, resulting in settlement of all affected transactions. As of September 30, 2011, we had not experienced any credit events that would trigger these provisions, nor did we have any derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that were in a net liability position.

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Foreign Currency Derivatives

 

We use foreign currency exchange rate derivatives to hedge our exposure to fluctuations in exchange rates for anticipated intercompany cash transactions between Waste Management Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary (“WM Holdings”), and its Canadian subsidiaries. As of September 30, 2011, we had foreign currency forward contracts outstanding for all of the anticipated cash flows associated with a debt arrangement between these wholly-owned subsidiaries. The hedged cash flows include C$370 million of principal, which is scheduled for payment on October 31, 2013, and interest payments scheduled as follows: C$10 million on November 30, 2011, C$11 million on November 30, 2012 and C$10 million on October 31, 2013. We designated our foreign currency derivatives as cash flow hedges.

 

Gains or losses on the underlying hedged items attributable to foreign currency exchange risk are recognized in current earnings. The gains or losses on our foreign currency forward contracts that are reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income are recognized as adjustments to other income and expense, which is the same financial statement line item where offsetting gains or losses on the related hedged items are recorded. The following table summarizes the pre-tax impacts of our foreign currency cash flow derivatives on our comprehensive income and results of operations (in millions):

 

 

Amounts reported in other comprehensive income and accumulated other comprehensive income are reported net of tax. Adjustments to other comprehensive income for changes in the fair value of our foreign currency cash flow hedges resulted in the recognition of after-tax gains of $15 million and $7 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, as compared with the recognition of after-tax losses of $7 million and $4 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively. After-tax adjustments for the reclassification of gains from accumulated other comprehensive income into income were $20 million and $13 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. After-tax adjustments for the reclassification of losses from accumulated other comprehensive income into income were $7 million and $4 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively. There was no significant ineffectiveness associated with these hedges during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 or 2010.

 

Electricity Commodity Derivatives

 

As a result of the expiration of certain long-term electricity contracts at our waste-to-energy facilities, we use short-term “receive fixed, pay variable” electricity commodity swaps to mitigate the variability in our revenues and cash flows caused by fluctuations in the market prices for electricity. We hedged 672,360 megawatt hours, or approximately 26%, of our Wheelabrator Group’s full year 2010 merchant electricity sales, and the swaps executed through September 30, 2011 are expected to hedge about 1.6 million megawatt hours, or 49%, of the Group’s full year 2011 merchant electricity sales. For the three-month periods ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, we hedged 46% and 22%, respectively, of our merchant electricity sales. For the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, we hedged 49% and 24%, respectively, of our merchant electricity sales. There was no significant

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

ineffectiveness associated with these cash flow hedges and all financial statement impacts associated with these derivatives were immaterial for the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

 

 

Our effective income tax rate for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 was 32.3% and 34.0%, respectively, compared with 37.3% and 39.8% for the comparable prior year periods. We evaluate our effective income tax rate at each interim period and adjust it accordingly as facts and circumstances warrant. The differences between federal income taxes computed at the federal statutory rate and reported income taxes for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 were primarily due to the favorable impact of federal tax credits, audit settlements and adjustments to our accruals due to the filing of our 2010 income tax returns offset in part by the unfavorable impact of state and local income taxes. The differences between federal income taxes computed at the federal statutory rate and reported income taxes for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 were primarily due to an increase in our state deferred income taxes to reflect the impact of changes in the estimated income tax rate at which temporary differences would be realized and the unfavorable impact of state and local income taxes, offset in part by the favorable impact of federal tax credits.

 

Investment in Refined Coal Facility  — In January 2011, we acquired a noncontrolling interest in a limited liability company, which was established to invest in and manage a refined coal facility in North Dakota. The facility’s refinement processes qualify for federal tax credits that are expected to be realized through 2019 in accordance with Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code. Our initial consideration for this investment consisted of a cash payment of $48 million.

 

We account for our investment in this entity using the equity method of accounting, recognizing our share of the entity’s results and other reductions in “Equity in net losses of unconsolidated entities,” within our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. Losses relating to our investment in this entity were immaterial for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011. Our tax provision for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 was reduced by $4 million and $11 million, respectively, primarily as a result of tax credits realized from this investment. See Note 14 for additional information related to this investment.

 

Investment in Federal Low-income Housing Tax Credits  — In April 2010, we acquired a noncontrolling interest in a limited liability company established to invest in and manage low-income housing properties. The entity’s low-income housing investments qualify for federal tax credits that are expected to be realized through 2020 in accordance with Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

We account for our investment in this entity using the equity method of accounting. We recognize our share of the entity’s results and reductions in the value of our investment in “Equity in net losses of unconsolidated entities,” within our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. The value of our investment decreases as the tax credits are generated and utilized. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, we recognized $5 million and $17 million of losses relating to our equity investment in this entity, $2 million and $6 million of interest expense, and a reduction in our tax provision of $9 million (including $7 million of tax credits) and $27 million (including $18 million of tax credits), respectively. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, we recognized $4 million and $12 million of losses associated with our equity investment, $3 million and $4 million of interest expense, and a reduction in our tax provision of $7 million (including $4 million of tax credits) and $18 million (including $12 million of tax credits), respectively.

 

Recent Legislation  — The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act, signed into law on December 17, 2010, included an extension of the bonus depreciation allowance through the end of 2012 and increased the amount of qualifying capital expenditures that can be depreciated immediately from 50 percent to 100 percent. The 100 percent depreciation deduction applies to qualifying property placed in service from September 8, 2010 through December 31, 2011. The acceleration of deductions on 2011 capital expenditures resulting from the bonus depreciation provision will have no impact on our effective tax rate. However, the ability to

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

accelerate depreciation deductions is expected to decrease our 2011 cash taxes by approximately $190 million. Taking the accelerated tax depreciation in the current period will result in increased cash taxes in future periods when the accelerated deductions for these capital expenditures would have otherwise been taken.

 

 

Comprehensive income was as follows (in millions):

 

 

The components of accumulated other comprehensive income, which is included as a component of Waste Management, Inc. stockholders’ equity, were as follows (in millions):

 

 

 

Financial Instruments  — We have obtained letters of credit, performance bonds and insurance policies and have established trust funds and issued financial guarantees to support tax-exempt bonds, contracts, performance of landfill final capping, closure and post-closure requirements, environmental remediation, and other obligations. Letters of credit generally are supported by our revolving credit facility and other credit facilities established for that purpose. We obtain surety bonds and insurance policies from an entity in which we have a noncontrolling financial interest. We also obtain insurance from a wholly-owned insurance company, the sole business of which is to issue policies for us. In those instances where our use of financial assurance from entities we own or have financial interests in is not allowed, we have available alternative financial assurance mechanisms.

 

Management does not expect that any claims against or draws on these instruments would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. We have not experienced any unmanageable difficulty in obtaining the required financial assurance instruments for our current operations. In an ongoing effort to mitigate risks of future cost increases and reductions in available capacity, we continue to evaluate various options to access cost-effective sources of financial assurance.

 

Insurance  — We carry insurance coverage for protection of our assets and operations from certain risks including automobile liability, general liability, real and personal property, workers’ compensation, directors’ and officers’ liability, pollution legal liability and other coverages we believe are customary to the industry. Our exposure to loss for insurance claims is generally limited to the per incident deductible under the related insurance policy. Our exposure, however, could increase if our insurers are unable to meet their commitments on a timely basis.

 

We have retained a significant portion of the risks related to our automobile, general liability and workers’ compensation insurance programs. For our self-insured retentions, the exposure for unpaid claims and associated expenses, including incurred but not reported losses, is based on an actuarial valuation and internal estimates. The accruals for these liabilities could be revised if future occurrences or loss development significantly differ from our assumptions used. We do not expect any known casualty, property, environmental or other contingency to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

 

Guarantees  — In the ordinary course of our business, WM and WM Holdings enter into guarantee agreements associated with their subsidiaries’ operations. Additionally, WM and WM Holdings have each guaranteed all of the

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

senior debt of the other entity. No additional liabilities have been recorded for these intercompany guarantees because all of the underlying obligations are reflected in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

 

We also have guaranteed the obligations of, and provided indemnification to, third parties in the ordinary course of business. Guarantee agreements outstanding as of September 30, 2011 include (i) guarantees of unconsolidated entities’ financial obligations maturing through 2020 for maximum future payments of $11 million; and (ii) agreements guaranteeing certain market value losses for approximately 900 homeowners’ properties adjacent to or near 21 of our landfills. Our indemnification obligations generally arise in divestitures and provide that we will be responsible for liabilities associated with our operations for events that occurred prior to the sale of the operations. Additionally, under certain of our acquisition agreements, we have provided for additional consideration to be paid to the sellers if established financial targets are achieved post-closing and we have recognized liabilities for these contingent obligations based on an estimate of the fair value of these contingencies at the time of acquisition. Contingent obligations related to indemnifications arising from our divestitures and contingent consideration provided for by our acquisitions are not expected to be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

Environmental Matters  — A significant portion of our operating costs and capital expenditures could be characterized as costs of environmental protection as we are subject to an array of laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. Under current laws and regulations, we may have liabilities for environmental damage caused by our operations, or for damage caused by conditions that existed before we acquired a site. In addition to remediation activity required by state or local authorities, such liabilities include potentially responsible party, or PRP, investigations. The costs associated with these liabilities can include settlements, certain legal and consultant fees, as well as incremental internal and external costs directly associated with site investigation and clean-up.

 

Estimating our degree of responsibility for remediation is inherently difficult. We recognize and accrue for an estimated remediation liability when we determine that such liability is both probable and reasonably estimable. Determining the method and ultimate cost of remediation requires that a number of assumptions be made. There can sometimes be a range of reasonable estimates of the costs associated with the investigation of the extent of environmental impact and identification of likely site-remediation alternatives. In these cases, we use the amount within the range that constitutes our best estimate. If no amount within a range appears to be a better estimate than any other, we use the amount that is the low end of such range. If we used the high ends of such ranges, our aggregate potential liability would be approximately $150 million higher than the $285 million recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as of September 30, 2011. Our ongoing review of our remediation liabilities, in light of relevant internal and external facts and circumstances, could result in revisions to our accruals that could cause upward or downward adjustments to income from operations. These adjustments could be material in any given period.

 

As of September 30, 2011, we had been notified that we are a PRP in connection with 79 locations listed on the EPA’s Superfund National Priorities List, or NPL. Of the 79 sites at which claims have been made against us, 17 are sites we own. Each of the NPL sites we own was initially developed by others as a landfill disposal facility. At each of these facilities, we are working in conjunction with the government to characterize or remediate identified site problems, and we have either agreed with other legally liable parties on an arrangement for sharing the costs of remediation or are working toward a cost-sharing agreement. We generally expect to receive any amounts due from other participating parties at or near the time that we make the remedial expenditures. The other 62 NPL sites, which we do not own, are at various procedural stages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, known as CERCLA or Superfund.

 

The majority of these proceedings involving NPL sites that we do not own are based on allegations that certain of our subsidiaries (or their predecessors) transported hazardous substances to the sites, often prior to our acquisition of these subsidiaries. CERCLA generally provides for liability for those parties owning, operating, transporting to or disposing at the sites. Proceedings arising under Superfund typically involve numerous waste

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

generators and other waste transportation and disposal companies and seek to allocate or recover costs associated with site investigation and remediation, which costs could be substantial and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. At some of the sites at which we have been identified as a PRP, our liability is well defined as a consequence of a governmental decision and an agreement among liable parties as to the share each will pay for implementing that remedy. At other sites, where no remedy has been selected or the liable parties have been unable to agree on an appropriate allocation, our future costs are uncertain.

 

Litigation  — In April 2002, certain former participants in the ERISA plans of WM Holdings filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a case entitled William S. Harris, et al. v. James E. Koenig, et al . The lawsuit attempts to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA plan participants on behalf of the plan based on allegations related to both the events alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the securities class action against WM Holdings that was settled in 1998, the litigation against WM in Texas that was settled in 2002, as well as the decision to offer WM common stock as an investment option within the plan beginning in 1990, despite alleged knowledge by at least two members of the investment committee of financial misstatement by WM during the relevant time period.

 

During the second quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain claims against individual defendants, including all claims against each of the current members of our Board of Directors. Previously, plaintiffs dismissed all claims related to the settlement of the securities class action against WM that was settled in 2002, and the court certified a limited class of participants who may bring claims on behalf of the plan, but not individually. During the third quarter of 2011, the Court ruled in favor of WM and two former employees dismissing all claims brought by the plaintiffs related to the decision to offer WM stock as an investment option within the plan. The Court still has under consideration additional motions that, if granted, would resolve the few remaining claims against WM and its Committees. The outcome of this lawsuit cannot be predicted with certainty. The defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in this litigation.

 

Two separate wage and hour lawsuits were commenced in October 2006 and March 2007 against certain of our subsidiaries in California, each seeking class certification. The actions were coordinated to proceed in San Diego County Superior Court. Both lawsuits make the same general allegations that our subsidiaries failed to comply with certain California wage and hour laws, including allegedly failing to provide meal and rest periods and failing to properly pay hourly and overtime wages. We have executed a settlement agreement in connection with this matter. Following hearings held on July 15, 2011 and October 21, 2011, the Court approved the class action settlement and final judgment. The settlement did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

 

Additionally, in July 2008, we were named as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of Bullock County, Alabama, which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. This suit pertained to our fuel and environmental charge in our customer service agreements and generally alleged that such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair and were contrary to the contracts. We filed a motion to dismiss that was partially granted during the third quarter of 2010, resulting in dismissal of the plaintiffs’ national class action claims. During the third quarter of 2011, the plaintiffs filed and the Court granted a motion to dismiss the litigation without prejudice.

 

In October 2011, we were named as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida. This suit was filed by the same law firm that brought the Alabama litigation discussed in the prior paragraph, and it also pertains to our fuel and environmental charges in our customer service agreements, generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair and were contrary to the contracts. We will vigorously defend this matter. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of this case cannot be predicted at this time, nor can possible damages, if any, be reasonably estimated.

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

We often enter into contractual arrangements with landowners imposing obligations on us to meet certain regulatory or contractual conditions upon site closure or upon termination of the agreements. Compliance with these arrangements is inherently subject to subjective determinations and may result in disputes, including litigation. In May 2008, Mnoian Management, Inc. filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking remediation and increased compaction of a site we had previously leased for landfill purposes. The parties have completed a binding arbitration and are awaiting the arbitrator’s decision.

 

From time to time, we also are named as defendants in personal injury and property damage lawsuits, including purported class actions, on the basis of having owned, operated or transported waste to a disposal facility that is alleged to have contaminated the environment or, in certain cases, on the basis of having conducted environmental remediation activities at sites. Some of the lawsuits may seek to have us pay the costs of monitoring of allegedly affected sites and health care examinations of allegedly affected persons for a substantial period of time even where no actual damage is proven. While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these lawsuits, the ultimate resolution is often substantially uncertain due to the difficulty of determining the cause, extent and impact of alleged contamination (which may have occurred over a long period of time), the potential for successive groups of complainants to emerge, the diversity of the individual plaintiffs’ circumstances, and the potential contribution or indemnification obligations of co-defendants or other third parties, among other factors.

 

As a large company with operations across the United States and Canada, we are subject to various proceedings, lawsuits, disputes and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. Many of these actions raise complex factual and legal issues and are subject to uncertainties. Actions filed against us include commercial, customer, and employment-related claims, including, as noted above, purported class action lawsuits related to our customer service agreements and purported class actions involving federal and state wage and hour and other laws. The plaintiffs in some actions seek unspecified damages or injunctive relief, or both. These actions are in various procedural stages, and some are covered in part by insurance. We currently do not believe that any such actions will ultimately have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements.

 

WM’s charter and bylaws require indemnification of its officers and directors if statutory standards of conduct have been met and allow the advancement of expenses to these individuals upon receipt of an undertaking by the individuals to repay all expenses if it is ultimately determined that they did not meet the required standards of conduct. Additionally, WM has entered into separate indemnification agreements with each of the members of its Board of Directors as well as its President and Chief Executive Officer, and its principal financial officer. The Company may incur substantial expenses in connection with the fulfillment of its advancement of costs and indemnification obligations in connection with current actions involving former officers of the Company or its subsidiaries or other actions or proceedings that may be brought against its former or current officers, directors and employees.

 

Item 103 of the SEC’s Regulation S-K requires disclosure of certain environmental matters when a governmental authority is a party to the proceedings, or such proceedings are known to be contemplated, unless we reasonably believe that the matter will result in no monetary sanctions, or in monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, of less than $100,000. The following matter pending as of September 30, 2011 is disclosed in accordance with that requirement:

 

On April 4, 2006, the EPA issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to Waste Management of Hawaii, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of WM, and to the City and County of Honolulu for alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act, based on an alleged failure to submit certain reports and design plans required by the EPA, and the failure to begin and timely complete the installation of a gas collection and control system (“GCCS”) for the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill on Oahu. The EPA has also indicated that it will seek penalties and injunctive relief as part of the NOV enforcement for elevated landfill temperatures that were recorded after installation of the GCCS. The parties have been in confidential settlement negotiations. Pursuant to an indemnity agreement, any penalty assessed will be paid by the Company, and not by the City and County of Honolulu.

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Additionally, the following matters previously reported were resolved during the third quarter of 2011 as set forth below.

 

On February 25, 2011, the EPA issued an NOV to Chemical Waste Management, Inc.’s Kettleman Hills facility for alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). In this matter, the EPA sought civil penalties for the violations alleged, which related primarily to management of landfill leachate, laboratory protocols, and the management and disposal of certain hazardous waste. On August 23, 2011, Chemical Waste Management, Inc. settled the RCRA enforcement action with the EPA through entry of a Consent Agreement/Final Order. Under the agreement, Chemical Waste Management, Inc. paid a penalty of $400,000 on September 12, 2011 and will implement certain corrective actions and process changes.

 

On April 11, 2011, Waste Management LampTracker, Inc.’s Kaiser, Missouri facility was notified that the EPA would be filing an administrative complaint and assessing civil penalties for alleged RCRA violations relating to container and facility management and the handling of certain waste. On September 12, 2011, Waste Management LampTracker, Inc. settled the RCRA enforcement action with the EPA through entry of a Consent Agreement/Final Order and paid a penalty of $118,800. As a result of the agreement, Waste Management LampTracker, Inc. will implement a corrective action at the facility.

 

Multiemployer, Defined Benefit Pension Plans  — About 20% of our workforce is covered by collective bargaining agreements with various union locals across the United States and Canada. As a result of some of these agreements, certain of our subsidiaries are participating employers in a number of trustee-managed multiemployer, defined benefit pension plans for the affected employees. One of the most significant multiemployer pension plans in which we have participated is the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan (“Central States Pension Plan”), which has reported that it adopted a rehabilitation plan as a result of its actuarial certification for the plan year beginning January 1, 2008. The Central States Pension Plan is in “critical status,” as defined by the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

 

In connection with our ongoing renegotiation of various collective bargaining agreements, we may discuss and negotiate for the complete or partial withdrawal from one or more of these pension plans. A complete or partial withdrawal from a multiemployer pension plan may also occur if employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement vote to decertify a union from continuing to represent them. In October 2011, our last remaining group of employees that were active participants in the Central States Pension Plan voted to decertify the union that represented them, ceasing any contribution obligation and effectively withdrawing them from the Central States Pension Plan.

 

We recognized charges to “Operating” expenses of $26 million, largely in the first quarter of 2010, associated with the withdrawal of three bargaining units from the Central States Pension Plan in connection with our negotiations of these units’ agreements. We are still negotiating and litigating final resolutions of our withdrawal liability for previous withdrawals and our recent final withdrawal referenced above, which could be materially higher than the charges we have recognized. We do not believe that our withdrawals from the multiemployer plans, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or liquidity. However, depending on the number of employees withdrawn in any future period and the financial condition of the multiemployer plans at the time of withdrawal, such withdrawals could materially affect our results of operations in the period of the withdrawal.

 

Tax Matters  — We are currently in the examination phase of IRS audits for the tax years 2010 and 2011 and expect these audits to be completed within the next three and 15 months, respectively. We participate in the IRS’s Compliance Assurance Program, which means we work with the IRS throughout the year in order to resolve any material issues prior to the filing of our year-end tax return. We are also currently undergoing audits by various state and local jurisdictions that date back to 2000. In the third quarter of 2010, we finalized audits in Canada through the 2005 tax year and are not currently under audit for any subsequent tax years. On July 28, 2011, we acquired Oakleaf, which is currently under IRS examination for the tax periods ended December 31, 2005 through December 31,

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

2008. We expect this examination to be completed within the next 12 months. In addition, Oakleaf is subject to state income tax examinations for years dating back to 2002. Pursuant to the terms of our acquisition of Oakleaf, we are entitled to indemnification for Oakleaf’s tax liabilities. We maintain a liability for uncertain tax positions, the balance of which management believes is adequate. Results of audit assessments by taxing authorities are not currently expected to have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or cash flows.

 

 

We currently manage and evaluate our operations primarily through our Eastern, Midwest, Southern, Western and Wheelabrator Groups. These five Groups are presented below as our reportable segments. Our four geographic operating Groups provide collection, transfer, disposal (in both solid waste and hazardous waste landfills) and recycling services. Our fifth Group is the Wheelabrator Group, which provides waste-to-energy services and manages waste-to-energy facilities and independent power production plants. We serve residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal customers throughout North America. The operations not managed through our five operating Groups, including the Oakleaf operations we acquired on July 28, 2011, are presented herein as “Other.” See Note 10 for additional information related to our acquisition of Oakleaf.

 

Summarized financial information concerning our reportable segments for the three and nine months ended September 30 is shown in the following table (in millions):

 

 

Fluctuations in our operating results may be caused by many factors, including period-to-period changes in the relative contribution of revenue by each line of business and operating segment and by general economic conditions. In addition, our revenues and income from operations typically reflect seasonal patterns. Our operating revenues normally tend to be somewhat higher in the summer months, primarily due to the traditional seasonal increase in the volume of construction and demolition waste. Historically, the volumes of industrial and residential waste in certain regions in which we operate have tended to increase during the summer months. Our second and third quarter revenues and results of operations typically reflect these seasonal trends.

 

Additionally, certain destructive weather conditions that tend to occur during the second half of the year, such as hurricanes that most often impact our Southern Group, can actually increase our revenues in the areas affected. While weather-related and other “one-time” occurrences can boost revenues through additional work, as a result of significant start-up costs and other factors, such revenue sometimes generates earnings at comparatively lower margins. Certain weather conditions, including severe winter storms, may result in the temporary suspension of our operations, which can significantly affect the operating results of the affected regions. The operating results of our first quarter also often reflect higher repair and maintenance expenses because we rely on the slower winter months, when waste flows are generally lower, to perform scheduled maintenance at our waste-to-energy facilities.

 

From time to time, the operating results of our reportable segments are significantly affected by unusual or infrequent transactions or events. During 2010, our Midwest Group recognized $26 million in charges, largely in the first quarter, as a result of bargaining unit employees in Michigan and Ohio agreeing to our proposal to withdraw them from an underfunded multiemployer pension plan. Refer to Note 8 for additional information related to our participation in multiemployer pension plans.

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

 

On July 28, 2011, we paid $432 million, net of cash received of $4 million and inclusive of certain adjustments, to acquire Oakleaf Global Holdings and its primary operations. Oakleaf provides outsourced waste and recycling services through a nationwide network of third-party haulers. The operations we acquired generated approximately $580 million in revenues in 2010. We acquired Oakleaf to advance our growth and transformation strategies and increase our national accounts customer base while enhancing our ability to provide comprehensive environmental solutions. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, we incurred $1 million of acquisition-related costs, which are classified as Selling, general and administrative expense. Since the acquisition date, Oakleaf has recognized revenues of $112 million and net losses of less than $1 million, which are included in our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. We have recorded a preliminary allocation of the purchase price to Oakleaf tangible and intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their estimated fair values as of July 28, 2011. The allocation of the purchase price shown in the table below is preliminary and subject to change based on the finalization of our detailed valuations. The preliminary purchase price allocation is as follows (in millions):

 

 

The following table presents the preliminary allocation of the purchase price to intangible assets (amounts in millions, except for amortization periods):

 

 

Goodwill of $320 million was calculated as the excess of the consideration paid over the net assets recognized and represents the future economic benefits arising from other assets acquired that could not be individually identified and separately recognized. Goodwill is a result of expected synergies from combining the Company’s operations with Oakleaf’s national accounts customer base and vendor network. The vendor-hauler network expands our partnership with third-party service providers. In many cases we can provide vendor-haulers with opportunities to maintain and increase their business by utilizing our extensive post-collection network. We believe this will generate significant benefits for the Company and for the vendor-haulers. Goodwill acquired will be allocated to our operating segments upon completion of our detailed valuations. Goodwill is not deductible for income tax purposes.

 

 

In July 2011, we took steps to streamline our organization as part of our cost savings programs. This reorganization eliminated over 700 employee positions throughout the Company, including approximately 300 open positions. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, we recognized $14 million of pre-tax restructuring charges related to employee severance and benefit costs associated with this reorganization. The following table summarizes the employee severance and benefit costs and other charges recognized for this restructuring by each of our current reportable segments and our Corporate and Other organization for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 (in millions):

 

 

Through September 30, 2011, we have paid approximately $4 million of the employee severance and benefit costs incurred as a result of this restructuring.

 

 

During the third quarter of 2011, we recognized impairment charges relating to two facilities in our medical waste services business as a result of the closure of one site and as a result of continuing operating losses at the other site. We wrote down the net book values of the sites to their estimated fair values.

 

We filed a lawsuit in March 2008 related to the revenue management software implementation that was suspended in 2007 and abandoned in 2009. Accordingly, in 2009, we recognized a non-cash charge of $51 million for the abandonment of the licensed software. In April 2010, we settled the lawsuit and received a one-time cash payment. The settlement increased our “Income from operations” for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 by $77 million.

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)