Commitments And Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2014

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

Legal Matters

12. 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, due to Polychlorinated Biphenyls (“PCBs”) contamination on and off the site. The subsidiary, which we acquired in January 1999, is believed to have sent transformers to the facility during the 1990s. Based on our investigation to date, there is evidence to support our defense that our subsidiary contributed no PCB contamination to the site.

In April 2009, two 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. The plaintiffs were two of four PRPs that 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 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 with those PRPs as well as others that were not recipients of the letter to discuss potential settlement of its costs associated with the site. The Company was invited to attend this meeting and asked to confirm whether it would participate in settlement discussions, which the Company confirmed. The Company intends to present to the EPA the evidence developed in litigation to support the argument that the Company did not contribute PCB contamination to the site. The Company has 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, 2014, 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

The Company is a defendant in three wage-and-hour suits seeking class action certification that were filed between August 29, 2012 and June 24, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Each of these cases is among several others filed by Plaintiffs’ attorney against contractors working in the Port Arthur, Texas 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. Management does not expect 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. On January 11, 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 bussing into the facility, and on October 8, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review plaintiffs’ appeal of the Fifth Circuit dismissal of their claims for compensation for time spent bussing to the facility, effectively reducing the Company’s risk of liability on this issue in its cases. Our investigation indicates that all claims for time spent on other activities 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, are positioning the cases to obtain a dismissal of all claims. As of March 31, 2014, 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, as well as pollution coverage, 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. In many cases, we insure third parties, including general contractors, as additional insureds under our insurance policies. Losses up to the deductible amounts, or losses that are not covered under our policies, 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, 2014, we had $4,960 accrued for insurance liabilities. We are also subject to construction defect liabilities, primarily within our Residential segment. As of March 31, 2014, we had $535 reserved for these claims. Because the reserves are based on judgment and estimates, and involve variables that are inherently uncertain, such as the outcome of litigation and an assessment of insurance coverage, there can be no assurance that the ultimate liability will not be higher or lower than such estimates or that the timing of payments will not create liquidity issues for the Company.

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, 2014, $6,347 of our outstanding letters of credit were utilized to collateralize our insurance program.

Surety

As of March 31, 2014, the estimated cost to complete our bonded projects was approximately$44,963. 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, 2014, we had cash totaling $500to 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.

Receivable from Surety

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, and based on subsequent payment defaults, was amended to provide for additional collateral and a 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%. Following a subsequent amendment to postpone or modify payment dates, on January 2, 2013, the Company tendered a notice of default to the surety and its coal mining operations, which had been pledged as additional collateral. 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 concluded the collection of the receivable was not probable as of December 31, 2012, and recorded a reserve in the amount $1,725 for the first quarter of fiscal 2013, bringing the receivable’s net carrying value to zero. The charge was recorded as other expense within our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income and the reserve was recorded within our current assets within the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

On March 8, 2013, the Company issued a notice of acceleration of the promissory notes signed by the two mining companies, and subsequently filed suit to enforce the acceleration and to domesticate the agreed judgment against the surety and its owner in Virginia. Following these actions, the surety entered into an amended agreement with the Company which provided for payment of $300, which was received on June 24, 2013, and additional monthly installments with final payment due June 30, 2014. As of the filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Company had received installment payments totaling $550. The defendants have defaulted on payments due beginning in November 2013 through March 2014. The defendants have indicated that they are pursuing financing, which will include an agreement to pay the Company $550 at closing of the financing, followed by monthly installments until all amounts due are paid in full, including attorneys’ fees and interest. In the meantime, the Company has reinstated legal actions targeted at recovering the full amount due. The extent of recovery of the remaining balance, if any, cannot be determined. However, the possibility of a partial or full recovery exists, particularly if the defendants are successful in obtaining financing. We have classified the $550 received during the year ended September 30, 2013 as other income within our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income. We are currently in discussions with the surety regarding their intention to resume payments, which could result in the recovery of additional amounts in the near term, although the recovery of such amounts cannot be reasonably assured. Therefore, any potential subsequent recovery will be included in other income.

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, 2014, $571 of our outstanding letters of credit were to collateralize our vendors.

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, 2014, we had such purchase orders totaling $4,395. We expect to use all of the materials purchased pursuant to these orders in the current year.