Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

12. Commitments and Contingencies

Significant new commitments, material changes in commitments and ongoing contingencies as of December 31, 2012, not disclosed elsewhere, are as follows:

Compensation Arrangements — Cash Performance Unit Awards. In fiscal 2009, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (Committee) approved grants of performance unit awards to certain officers and employees, to be settled in cash, based on the achievement of goals tied to cumulative divisional cash flow generated subsequent to September 30, 2008 and prior to September 30, 2028. For these awards, cash flow is generally defined as operating income plus depreciation, amortization and asset impairments, reduced by capital expenditures. Payments vest according to a predetermined schedule as cash flow accumulates over time.

In fiscal 2010, the Committee terminated the performance unit awards for all participants in the corporate business unit and assigned a five-year performance period ending September 30, 2013 to the cash flow goals, aggregating $850.0 million, for the remaining participating business units. Through September 30, 2012, the remaining business units had generated approximately $319.2 million of cash flow and incurred approximately $4.0 million of expense for these awards. Effective October 1, 2012, certain additional business units ended their participation in these performance unit awards. Based upon performance criteria expected to be achieved by the remaining participating business units prior to September 30, 2013, the additional expense expected to be recognized in fiscal 2013 under the amended performance unit awards is approximately $1.4 million, of which approximately $0.3 million was expensed in the December 2012 quarter.

In fiscal 2012, the Committee approved grants of performance unit awards to certain officers and employees in the corporate business unit, to be settled in cash, related to consolidated cash flow generated during fiscal 2012, based on the achievement of goals related to consolidated cash flow generated during fiscal 2012. For purposes of these awards, cash flow is generally defined as operating income plus depreciation, amortization and asset impairments, reduced by capital expenditures. The number of awards granted was determined using a target compensation amount for each participant and was adjusted, subject to prescribed limitations, based on the actual consolidated cash flow generated during the fiscal 2012 performance year, using a threshold/target/maximum adjustment structure. The actual cash flow generated during the performance period exceeded the maximum level, and the awards provide for 50% vesting as of September 30, 2013 and 50% vesting as of September 30, 2014, provided the participant is still employed by Headwaters on the vest dates. The terms of the awards provide for further adjustment for changes in Headwaters’ average stock price for the 60 days preceding September 30, 2012 as compared to Headwaters’ average stock price for the 60 days preceding September 30, 2011. As of December 31, 2012, approximately $9.6 million of expense has been recorded for the 2012 grants, all of which was recognized during fiscal 2012.

During the December 2012 quarter, the Committee approved grants of performance unit awards to participants in certain business units related to consolidated cash flow generated during fiscal 2013, again with terms similar to those described above for fiscal 2012. No expense was recognized for these awards in the December 2012 quarter.

Cash-Settled SAR Grants.  In fiscal 2011, the Committee approved grants to certain employees of approximately 0.4 million cash-settled SARs, most of which remain outstanding as of December 31, 2012. These SARs vest in annual installments through September 30, 2013, provided the participant is still employed at the respective vest dates, and are settled in cash upon exercise by the employee. The SARs terminate on September 30, 2015 and must be exercised on or before that date. As of December 31, 2012, approximately $1.3 million has been accrued for these awards because the stock price at December 31, 2012 was above the grant-date stock price of $3.81. Future changes in Headwaters’ stock price in any amount beyond $3.81 through September 30, 2015 will result in adjustment to the expected remaining liability, which adjustment (whether positive or negative) will be reflected in Headwaters’ statement of operations each quarter.

In fiscal 2012, the Committee approved grants to certain officers and employees of approximately 1.0 million cash-settled SARs. These SARs have terms similar to those described above, except that they could not vest until and unless the 60-day average stock price exceeded approximately 135% of the stock price on the date of grant (or $2.50), which occurred during the March 2012 quarter. Approximately $4.5 million has been accrued for these awards as of December 31, 2012. Changes in Headwaters’ stock price in any amount beyond the grant-date stock price of $1.85 through September 30, 2016 will result in adjustment to the expected remaining liability, which adjustment (whether positive or negative) will be reflected in Headwaters’ statement of operations each quarter.

Property, Plant and Equipment — As of December 31, 2012, Headwaters was committed to spend approximately $2.0 million on capital projects that were in various stages of completion.

Legal Matters — Headwaters has ongoing litigation and asserted claims which have been incurred during the normal course of business, including the specific matters discussed below. Headwaters intends to vigorously defend or resolve these matters by settlement, as appropriate. Management does not currently believe that the outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Headwaters’ operations, cash flow or financial position.

During the quarters ended December 31, 2011 and 2012, Headwaters incurred approximately $0.3 million and $0.6 million, respectively, of expense for legal matters. Historically, until fiscal 2011, costs paid to outside legal counsel have comprised a majority of Headwaters’ litigation-related costs. Headwaters currently believes the range of potential loss for all unresolved legal matters, excluding costs for outside counsel, is from $18.0 million up to the amounts sought by claimants and has recorded a liability as of December 31, 2012 of $18.0 million. The substantial claims and damages sought by claimants in excess of this amount are not currently deemed to be probable. Headwaters’ outside counsel and management currently believe that unfavorable outcomes of outstanding litigation beyond the amount accrued are neither probable nor remote. Accordingly, management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Headwaters’ liability, nor is it possible to estimate what litigation-related costs will be in future periods.

The specific matters discussed below raise difficult and complex legal and factual issues, and the resolution of these issues is subject to many uncertainties, including the facts and circumstances of each case, the jurisdiction in which each case is brought, and the future decisions of juries, judges, and arbitrators. Therefore, although management believes that the claims asserted against Headwaters in the named cases lack merit, there is a possibility of material losses in excess of the amounts accrued if one or more of the cases were to be determined adversely against Headwaters for a substantial amount of the damages asserted. It is possible that a change in the estimates of probable liability could occur, and the changes could be material. Additionally, as with any litigation, these proceedings require that Headwaters incur substantial costs, including attorneys’ fees, managerial time and other personnel resources, in pursuing resolution.

Boynton.  In 1998, Headwaters entered into a technology purchase agreement with James G. Davidson and Adtech, Inc. The transaction transferred certain patent and royalty rights to Headwaters related to a synthetic fuel technology invented by Davidson. In 2002, Headwaters received a summons and complaint from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee filed by former stockholders of Adtech alleging, among other things, fraud, conspiracy, constructive trust, conversion, patent infringement and interference with contract arising out of the 1998 technology purchase agreement entered into between Davidson and Adtech on the one hand, and Headwaters on the other. All claims against Headwaters were dismissed in pretrial proceedings except claims of conspiracy and constructive trust. The District Court certified a class comprised of substantially all purported stockholders of Adtech, Inc. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages from Headwaters in the approximate amount of $43.0 million plus prejudgment interest and punitive damages. In June 2009, a jury reached a verdict in a trial in the amount of $8.7 million for the eight named plaintiffs representing a portion of the class members. In September 2010, a jury reached a verdict after a trial for the remaining 46 members of the class in the amount of $7.3 million. In April 2011, the trial court entered an order for a constructive trust in the amount of approximately $16.0 million (the same amount as the sum of the previous jury verdicts), denied all other outstanding motions, and entered judgment against Headwaters in the total approximate amount of $16.0 million, in accordance with the verdicts and order on constructive trust. The court denied all post-judgment motions by the parties. Headwaters filed a supersedeas bond and a notice of appeal from the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Plaintiffs also filed notice of an appeal. The Federal Circuit transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on the basis of jurisdiction. Appellate briefing is complete and the Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for March 2013. Because the resolution of the litigation is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Headwaters’ liability.

EPA.  In April 2012, Headwaters Resources, Inc. (HRI) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The complaint alleges that the EPA has failed to review, and where necessary, revise applicable RCRA subtitle D regulations applicable to the disposal of coal ash within the timeframe required by statute. Other parties also have initiated litigation against the EPA alleging the same (and other) failures of the EPA to perform its duties regarding coal ash disposal regulations. HRI’s complaint seeks declaratory relief and should provide HRI an opportunity to represent its interests before the court makes orders with respect to EPA rulemaking at issue in the case. The court has consolidated HRI’s case with related actions brought by other parties. The parties have completed briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment, but the court has not announced a schedule for hearing or decision on the motions. Because the resolution of the litigation is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate outcome.

Fentress Families Trust.  VFL Technology Corporation (VFL), acquired by HRI in 2004, provides services related to fly ash management to Virginia Electric and Power Company. In February 2012, 383 plaintiffs, most of whom are residents living in the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, filed a complaint in the State of Virginia Chesapeake Circuit Court against 15 defendants, including Virginia Electric and Power Company, and certain other persons associated with the Battlefield Golf Course, including owners, developers, contractors, and others, including VFL and Headwaters, alleging causes of action for nuisance and negligence. The complaint alleges that fly ash used to construct the golf course was carried in the air and contaminated water exposing plaintiffs to dangerous chemicals and causing property damage. Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages of approximately $850.0 million for removal and remediation of the fly ash and the water supply, $1.9 billion for vexation, $8.0 million and other unspecified amounts for personal injuries, and $55.0 million as damages to properties, plus prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and costs. In a related case, other plaintiffs have filed a separate lawsuit asserting the same claims against the same defendants claiming additional damages totaling approximately $307.2 million. VFL and Headwaters have not yet been served with either complaint. Headwaters expects that the court will issue an order on demurrers filed by Virginia Electric in early 2013, after which the plaintiffs will be granted leave to file amended complaints. These new cases are based on substantially the same alleged circumstances asserted in complaints filed by the plaintiffs in 2009 and voluntarily dismissed in 2010. HRI has filed claims for defense and indemnity with some of its insurers. One insurer denied coverage based on allegations in the 2009 Fentress complaints, and a trial court has ruled in the insurer’s favor, which ruling HRI intends to appeal. HRI does not know if the insurer will deny coverage based on future Fentress allegations. Another insurer continues to pay for the preliminary defense of the underlying case. Plaintiffs’ total claims exceed the potential limits of insurance available to HRI. Because resolution of the litigation is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of HRI’s liability, or the insurers’ obligation to indemnify HRI against loss, if any.

Neil Wallace and CPM.  In February 2012, Neil Wallace filed a complaint in the State of Virginia Chesapeake Circuit Court against Virginia Electric and Power Company and related entities (VEPCO), VFL and Headwaters alleging personal injuries arising from exposure to the fly ash used to build the golf course described in the Fentress Families Trust case. Wallace claims that he worked on the golf course site from 2002-2007 and that as a result, he contracted kidney cancer. Plaintiff was the managing member and corporate counsel of CPM Virginia, LLC (CPM). CPM was a fly ash manager for VEPCO and was an owner and developer of the golf course. Wallace claims damages of $10.0 million. HRI expects that its insurers will defend and indemnify HRI. Separately, in December 2012 CPM filed a complaint in the same court against HRI alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory judgment and compensatory damages in the amount of $0.5 million plus attorney fees and costs. CPM alleges that HRI should indemnify CPM for past and future expenses incurred in defending against the Fentress complaints. Because resolution of this litigation is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of HRI’s liability, or the insurers’ obligation to indemnify HRI against loss, if any.

Oxford Mining Company.  In 2007, Covol Fuels No. 2, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Headwaters Energy Services Corp. (Covol), entered into an agreement for the sale of coal produced by Covol from certain operations in Kentucky. In 2009, the agreement was assigned by the buyer to Oxford Mining Company—Kentucky, LLC (Oxford). Covol claims that the economically recoverable source coal for the agreement is exhausted and that as a result, the agreement has terminated. In October 2011, Covol filed a petition in the Franklin Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky seeking declaratory judgment that the agreement has terminated. In December 2011, Oxford answered, denying that the agreement was terminated and requesting that the court dismiss Covol’s petition. Oxford also filed a counterclaim alleging that Covol is in breach of the agreement for failing to provide coal and that Oxford’s present and anticipated damages are estimated to be at least $5.0 million, in addition to its costs associated with the litigation, including attorneys’ fees. Covol denies the counterclaim. Discovery between the parties is ongoing. Because the resolution of the litigation is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Covol’s liability.

Reechcraft.  In 2006, Tapco International Corporation entered into a contract with Reechcraft, Inc. for Reechcraft to manufacture and supply sheet metal bending tools, accessories for those tools, and specialized scaffolding systems to Tapco. Reechcraft claims that Tapco failed to purchase the quantity of products required under the contract. In July 2012, Reechcraft filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association in Chicago, Illinois, claiming damages of $3.1 million, in addition to interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Tapco and Reechcraft have entered into a settlement agreement. Once that settlement is performed, the arbitration will be dismissed.

Archstone.  Archstone owns an apartment complex in Westbury, New York. Archstone alleges that moisture penetrated the building envelope and damaged moisture sensitive parts of the buildings which began to rot and grow mold. In 2008, Archstone evicted its tenants and began repairing the 21 apartment buildings. Also in 2008, Archstone filed a complaint in the Nassau County Supreme Court of the State of New York against the prime contractor and its performance bond surety, the designer, and Eldorado Stone, LLC which supplied architectural stone that was installed by others during construction. The prime contractor then sued over a dozen subcontractors who in turn sued others. Archstone claims as damages approximately $36.0 million in repair costs, $19.0 million in lost lease payments and rent abatement, $7.0 million paid to tenants who sued Archstone, and $7.0 million for class action defense fees, plus prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees. Eldorado Stone answered denying liability and tendered the matter to its insurers who are paying for the defense of the case. The court dismissed all of Archstone’s claims against Eldorado Stone, except the claim of negligence, and the parties appealed the order of dismissal. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Archstone’s claims against Eldorado Stone, and reversed the trial court’s failure to dismiss the claim of negligence. Eldorado Stone expects that Archstone will pursue additional appeals. Meanwhile, discovery is underway. Because the resolution of the action is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion concerning the likely outcome of this matter, the liability of Eldorado Stone, if any, or the insurers’ obligation to indemnify Eldorado Stone against loss, if any.

Headwaters Building Products Matters.  There are litigation and pending and threatened claims made against certain subsidiaries of Headwaters Building Products (HBP), a division within Headwaters’ light building products segment, with respect to several types of exterior finish systems manufactured and sold by its subsidiaries for application by contractors on residential and commercial buildings. Typically, litigation and these claims are defended by such subsidiaries’ insurance carriers. The plaintiffs or claimants in these matters have alleged that the structures have suffered damage from latent or progressive water penetration due to some alleged failure of the building product or wall system. One claim involves alleged defects associated with components of an Exterior Insulating and Finish System (EIFS) which was produced for a limited time (through 1997) by the HBP subsidiaries. Other claims involve alleged liabilities associated with certain stucco, mortar, aerated concrete block and architectural stone products which are produced and sold by certain subsidiaries of HBP. The Archstone case summarized above is an example of these types of claims.

Typically, the claims cite damages for alleged personal injuries and punitive damages for alleged unfair business practices in addition to asserting more conventional damage claims for alleged economic loss and damage to property. To date, claims made against such subsidiaries have been paid by their insurers, with the exception of deductibles or self-insured retentions, although such insurance carriers typically have issued “reservation of rights” letters. There is no guarantee of insurance coverage or continuing coverage. These and future proceedings may result in substantial costs to HBP, including attorneys’ fees, managerial time and other personnel resources and costs. Adverse resolution of these proceedings could have a materially negative effect on HBP’s business, financial condition, and results of operation, and its ability to meet its financial obligations. Although HBP carries general and product liability insurance, HBP cannot assure that such insurance coverage will remain available, that HBP’s insurance carrier will remain viable, or that the insured amounts will cover all future claims in excess of HBP’s uninsured retention. Future rate increases may also make such insurance uneconomical for HBP to maintain. In addition, the insurance policies maintained by HBP exclude claims for damages resulting from exterior insulating finish systems, or EIFS, that have manifested after March 2003. Because resolution of the litigation and claims is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of HBP’s liability.

Other.  Headwaters and its subsidiaries are also involved in other legal proceedings that have arisen in the normal course of business.