XML 66 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments And Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]  
Legal Matters

11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

 

Legal Matters

 

From time to time we are a party to various claims, lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. We maintain various insurance coverages to minimize financial risk associated with these proceedings. None of these proceedings, separately or in the aggregate, are expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. With respect to all such proceedings, we record reserves when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We expense routine legal costs related to these proceedings as they are incurred.

 

The following is a discussion of our significant legal matters:

Ward Transformer Site

 

One of our subsidiaries has been identified as one of more than 200 potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) with respect to the clean-up of an electric transformer resale and reconditioning facility, known as the Ward Transformer Site, located in Raleigh, North Carolina. The facility built, repaired, reconditioned and sold electric transformers from approximately 1964 to 2005. We did not own or operate the facility but a subsidiary that we acquired in January 1999 is believed to have sent transformers to the facility during the 1990s. During the course of its operation, the facility was contaminated by Polychlorinated Biphenyls (“PCBs”), which also have been found to have migrated off the site. Based on our investigation to date, there is evidence to support our defense that our subsidiary contributed no PCB contamination to the site.

 

Four PRPs have commenced clean-up of on-site contaminated soils under an Emergency Removal Action pursuant to a settlement agreement and Administrative Order on Consent entered into between the four PRPs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in September 2005. We are not a party to that settlement agreement or Order on Consent. In April 2009, two of these PRPs, Carolina Power and Light Company and Consolidation Coal Company, filed suit against us and most of the other PRPs in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Western Division) to contribute to the cost of the clean-up.

In addition to the on-site clean-up, the EPA has selected approximately 50 PRPs to which it sent a Special Notice Letter in late 2008 to organize the clean-up of soils off site and address contamination of groundwater and other miscellaneous off-site issues. We were not a recipient of that letter. On January 8, 2013, the EPA held a meeting to discuss potential settlement of its costs associated with the site. The meeting included a number of the defendants, as well as other PRPs not currently in the litigation. The Company was invited to attend this meeting and counsel for the Company attended. The EPA has notified all parties that they must indicate by March 15, 2013 whether they will participate in settlement discussions. This settlement is separate from the 2009 litigation filed by PRPs against the Company and others. The Company has notified the EPA that it intends to participate in the settlement discussions. In addition, the Company intends to present to the EPA the evidence developed in the 2009 suit to support the argument that the Company did not contribute PCB contamination to the site. We have tendered a demand for indemnification to the former owner of the acquired corporation that may have transacted business with the facility. As of March 31, 2013, we have not recorded a reserve for this matter, as we believe the likelihood of our responsibility for damages is not probable and a potential range of exposure is not estimable.

Hamilton Wage and Hour

On August 29, 2012, the Company was served with a wage and hour suit seeking class action certification. On December 4, 2012, the Company was served with a second suit, which included the same allegations but different named plaintiffs. These two cases are almost identical to several others filed by Plaintiffs' attorney against contractors working in the Port Arthur Motiva plant on various projects over the last few years. The claims are based on alleged failure to compensate for time spent bussing to and from the plant, donning safety wear and other activities. It does not appear the company will face significant exposure for any unpaid wages. In a separate earlier case based on the same allegations, a federal district court ruled that the time spent traveling on the busses is not compensable. In early January 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling finding no liability for wages for time spent on bussing into the facility. Our investigation indicates that all other activities alleged either were inapplicable to the Company's employees or took place during times for which the Company's employees were compensated. We have filed responsive pleadings and, following initial discovery, will seek dismissal of the case through summary judgment. As of March 31, 2013, we have not recorded a reserve for this matter, as we believe the likelihood of our responsibility for damages is not probable and a potential range of exposure is not estimable.

 

Risk-Management

 

We retain the risk for workers' compensation, employer's liability, automobile liability, general liability and employee group health claims, resulting from uninsured deductibles per accident or occurrence which are subject to annual aggregate limits. Our general liability program provides coverage for bodily injury and property damage. Losses up to the deductible amounts are accrued based upon our known claims incurred and an estimate of claims incurred but not reported. As a result, many of our claims are effectively self-insured. Many claims against our insurance are in the form of litigation. At March 31, 2013, we had $4,107 accrued for insurance liabilities. We are also subject to construction defect liabilities, primarily within our Residential segment. As of March 31, 2013, we had $629 reserved for these claims.

 

Some of the underwriters of our casualty insurance program require us to post letters of credit as collateral. This is common in the insurance industry. To date, we have not had a situation where an underwriter has had reasonable cause to effect payment under a letter of credit. At March 31, 2013, $6,852 of our outstanding letters of credit were utilized to collateralize our insurance program.

Surety

 

Many customers, particularly in connection with new construction, require us to post performance and payment bonds issued by a surety. Those bonds provide a guarantee to the customer that we will perform under the terms of our contract and that we will pay our subcontractors and vendors. If we fail to perform under the terms of our contract or to pay subcontractors and vendors, the customer may demand that the surety make payments or provide services under the bond. We must reimburse the sureties for any expenses or outlays they incur on our behalf. To date, we have not been required to make any reimbursements to our sureties for bond-related costs.

 

As is common in the surety industry, sureties issue bonds on a project-by-project basis and can decline to issue bonds at any time. We believe that our relationships with our sureties will allow us to provide surety bonds as they are required. However, current market conditions, as well as changes in our sureties' assessment of our operating and financial risk, could cause our sureties to decline to issue bonds for our work. If our sureties decline to issue bonds for our work, our alternatives would include posting other forms of collateral for project performance, such as letters of credit or cash, seeking bonding capacity from other sureties, or engaging in more projects that do not require surety bonds. In addition, if we are awarded a project for which a surety bond is required but we are unable to obtain a surety bond, the result can be a claim for damages by the customer for the costs of replacing us with another contractor.

 

As of March 31, 2013, the estimated cost to complete our bonded projects was approximately $59,889. We evaluate our bonding requirements on a regular basis, including the terms offered by our sureties. We believe the bonding capacity presently provided by our current sureties is adequate for our current operations and will be adequate for our operations for the foreseeable future. As of March 31, 2013, we had cash totaling $999 to collateralize our obligations to certain of our previous sureties (as is included in Other Non-Current Assets in our Consolidated Balance Sheet). Posting letters of credit in favor of our sureties reduces the borrowing availability under our 2012 Credit Facility.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

 

Some of our customers and vendors require us to post letters of credit as a means of guaranteeing performance under our contracts and ensuring payment by us to subcontractors and vendors. If our customer has reasonable cause to effect payment under a letter of credit, we would be required to reimburse our creditor for the letter of credit. At March 31, 2013, $200 of our outstanding letters of credit were to collateralize our vendors.

 

On January 9, 2012, we entered into a settlement agreement with regard to $2,000 of collateral held by a surety who previously issued construction payment and performance bonds for us. The agreement called for a total settlement of $2,200 to be paid in monthly installments through February 2013. We received installments totaling $175 through April 2012; however, the surety then failed to make any payments from April 2012 to August 2012. We filed a motion to enter judgment on the note, and then on August 7, 2012, reached a new payment agreement with the surety. The amended agreement provided for additional collateral and called for the total settlement amount of $2,025 ($2,200 less the $175 already received) to be paid in monthly installments beginning September 30, 2012 through July 2014 with an interest rate of 12%. The surety subsequently negotiated a postponement of the initial installment and began payments with $50 tendered on October 31, 2012 and a second payment of $50 tendered in early December 2012. The surety then requested another postponement and amendment to the payment agreement to modify payment dates based on the production rates of the surety's investment in a coal mining operation. On January 2, 2013, the Company tendered a notice of default to the surety and its coal mining operations, which make up the additional collateral negotiated in the first amendment to the settlement agreement. Given the surety's failure to make the payments due on December 31, 2012, and January 31, 2013, and its continued attempts to restructure the underlying settlement agreement, the Company has concluded the collection of the receivable was not probable as of December 31, 2012. The Company recorded a reserve in the amount $1,725, bringing the receivable's net carrying value to zero. The reserve was recorded as other expense within our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income. On March 8, 2013, the Company issued a notice of acceleration of the promissory notes signed by the two mining companies which formed the collateral supporting the amended payment agreement, and then filed suit a week later to enforce the acceleration. Once this case reaches judgment, the Company intends to pursue seizure of the coal mining assets. On April 17, 2013, the Company filed the necessary documents to domesticate the agreed judgment against Mr. Scarborough and IBCS in Virginia. This filing results in a lien on Mr. Scarborough's real property and opens the door to pursue Mr. Scarborough's personal assets and any assets held by the surety. The extent of recovery, if any, cannot be determined. However, the possibility of a partial or full recovery exists as IES aggressively pursues the collection of the collateral. Any recovery in subsequent periods will be recorded as other income.

 

Between October 2004 and September 2005, we sold all or substantially all of the assets of certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries. As these sales were assets sales, rather than stock sales, we may be required to fulfill obligations that were assigned or sold to others, if the purchaser is unwilling or unable to perform the transferred liabilities. If this were to occur, we would seek reimbursement from the purchasers. These potential liabilities will continue to diminish over time. To date, we have not been required to perform on any projects sold under this divestiture program.

 

From time to time, we may enter into firm purchase commitments for materials such as copper or aluminum wire which we expect to use in the ordinary course of business. These commitments are typically for terms less than one year and require us to buy minimum quantities of materials at specific intervals at a fixed price over the term. As of March 31, 2013, we had no such open purchase commitments.