Legal Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Apr. 30, 2012

Commitments/Legal Contingencies [Abstract]

LEGAL CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 13—LEGAL CONTINGENCIES

In the normal course of business, the Company has pending claims and legal proceedings. It is the opinion of the Company’s management, based on information available at this time, that none of the current claims and proceedings could have a material effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements other than the matters discussed below. The material amounts of any legal fees expected to be incurred in connection with these matters are accrued when such amounts are estimable.

Altra Matters

GPS was the contractor for engineering, procurement and construction services related to an anhydrous ethanol plant in Carleton, Nebraska (the “Project”). The Project owner was ALTRA Nebraska, LLC (“Altra”). In November 2007, GPS and Altra agreed to a suspension of the Project while Altra sought to obtain financing to complete the Project. By March 2008, financing had not been arranged which terminated the construction contract prior to completion of the Project. In March 2008, GPS filed a mechanic’s lien against the Project in the approximate amount of $23.8 million, which amount included sums owed to subcontractors/suppliers of GPS and their subcontractors/suppliers. Several other claimants also filed mechanic’s liens against the Project. In August 2009, Altra filed for bankruptcy protection. Proceedings resulted in a court-ordered liquidation of Altra’s assets. The incomplete plant was sold at auction in October 2009. Remaining net proceeds of approximately $5.5 million are being held by the bankruptcy court and have not been distributed to Altra’s creditors.

The court has separated the lien action into two phases relating to the priority of the claims first and the validity and amount of each party’s lien claim second. In November 2011, the court held that the claim of the project lender is superior to the lien claim of GPS. Fact discovery related to the second phase was completed in January 2012, but the court stayed this action pending the resolution of the claim against the Company’s payment bond that is discussed below.

Delta-T Corporation (“Delta-T”) was a major subcontractor to GPS on the Project. In January 2009, GPS and Delta-T executed a Project Close-Out Agreement (the “Close-Out”) which settled all contract claims between the parties and included a settlement payment in the amount of $3.5 million that GPS made to Delta-T. In the Close-Out, Delta-T also agreed to prosecute any lien claims against Altra, to assign to GPS the first $3.5 million of any resulting proceeds and to indemnify and defend any claims against GPS related to the Project. In addition, GPS received a guarantee from Delta-T’s parent company in support of the indemnification commitment. Delta-T assigned its lien rights related to the Project to GPS which has advised the parties that it will be pursuing only the assigned lien rights of Delta-T, amounting to approximately $21.2 million, for the remainder of this action.

In April 2009, one of the subcontractors to Delta-T (“DCR”) received an arbitration award in its favor against Delta-T in the amount of approximately $6.8 million, including approximately $662,000 in interest and $2.3 million identified in the award as amounts applied to other projects (the “Judgment Award”). In April 2009, DCR also filed suit in the District Court of Thayer County, Nebraska, in order to recover its claimed amount of $3.6 million unpaid by Delta-T on the Altra project from a payment bond issued to Altra on behalf of GPS. In December 2009, the Judgment Award was confirmed in federal district court in Florida. In February 2010, DCR amended the amount of its complaint filed in the Nebraska court against the payment bond to $6.8 million, plus interest, to match the amount of the Judgment Award. Delta-T has not paid or satisfied any portion of the award and it has abandoned its defense of the surety company. The parties are currently engaged in the discovery phase of this litigation.

In December 2011, DCR filed a separate lawsuit against GPS relating to the Project in the District Court of Thayer County, Nebraska, and alleging claims against GPS for failure to furnish the surety bond upon request and unjust enrichment. DCR claims, that to the extent that the bonding company is successful in asserting a notice defense to DCR’s claim, GPS is liable for DCR’s damages for failing to furnish the bond when requested. DCR’s unjust enrichment claim alleges that GPS received payments from Altra that exceeded the scope of GPS’s work on the Project and should have been paid to lower tier subcontractors such as DCR; its complaint seeks damages in the amount of $6.1 million plus interest, costs and attorney fees.

The Company intends to vigorously pursue its assigned lien claim against the Altra project as well as to defend these matters for itself and the surety company, to investigate the inclusion of the $2.3 million applied to other projects in the Judgment Award, to demand that Delta-T satisfy its obligations under the Close Out, and/or to enforce the guarantee provided to GPS by Delta-T’s parent company. Due to the early stages of these legal proceedings, assurance cannot be provided by the Company that it will be successful in these efforts. It is reasonably possible that resolution of the matters discussed above could result in a loss with a material negative effect on the Company’s consolidated operating results in a future reporting period. However, at this time, management cannot make an estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, related to these matters. No provision for loss has been recorded in the consolidated financial statements as of April 30, 2012 related to these matters. If new facts become known in the future indicating that it is probable that a loss has been incurred by GPS and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated by GPS, the impacts of the change will be reflected in the consolidated financial statements at that time.

Tampa Bay Nutraceutical Company

On or about September 19, 2007, Tampa Bay Nutraceutical Company, Inc. (“Tampa Bay”) filed a civil action in the Circuit Court of Florida for Collier County against VLI. The current causes of action relate to an order for product issued by Tampa Bay to VLI in June 2007 and sound in (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) fraudulent misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) breach of express warranty; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (7) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; and (8) non-conforming goods. Tampa Bay alleges compensatory damages in excess of $42 million. The Company is vigorously defending this litigation. Depositions are ongoing. Over the last twelve months, the parties have been engaged primarily in legal activity concerning Tampa Bay’s failure to provide proper discovery responses to the Company. VLI has prevailed on the legal issues and sanctions were issued by the court against Tampa Bay without any noticeable impact on its discovery responses.

Although the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, it is impracticable to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of a trial or to estimate a likely range of damages, if any, at this stage of the litigation. It is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of the litigation with Tampa Bay could result in a material adverse effect on the results of operations of the Company for a future reporting period.