XML 92 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

20. Contingencies

   Environmental

     Federal, state and local requirements relating to the discharge of substances into the environment, the disposal of hazardous wastes and other activities affecting the environment have, and will continue to have, an impact on the operations of the company. The process of estimating environmental liabilities is complex and dependent upon evolving physical and scientific data at the sites, uncertainties as to remedies and technologies to be used and the outcome of discussions with regulatory agencies. The company records liabilities for environmental issues in the accounting period in which they are considered to be probable and the cost can be reasonably estimated. At environmental sites in which more than one potentially responsible party has been identified, the company records a liability for its allocable share of costs related to its involvement with the site, as well as an allocable share of costs related to insolvent parties or unidentified shares. At environmental sites in which Meritor is the only potentially responsible party, the company records a liability for the total probable and estimable costs of remediation before consideration of recovery from insurers or other third parties.

     The company has been designated as a potentially responsible party at nine Superfund sites, excluding sites as to which the company’s records disclose no involvement or as to which the company’s liability has been finally determined. Management estimates the total reasonably possible costs the company could incur for the remediation of Superfund sites at March 31, 2012 to be approximately $19 million, of which $3 million is recorded as a liability. Included in reasonably possible amounts are estimates for certain remediation actions that may be required if current actions are deemed inadequate by the regulators.

     In addition to the Superfund sites, various other lawsuits, claims and proceedings have been asserted against the company, alleging violations of federal, state and local environmental protection requirements, or seeking remediation of alleged environmental impairments, principally at previously disposed-of properties. For these matters, management has estimated the total reasonably possible costs the company could incur at March 31, 2012 to be approximately $38 million, of which $15 million is recorded as a liability.

     Included in the company’s environmental liabilities are costs for on-going operation, maintenance and monitoring at environmental sites in which remediation has been put into place. This liability is discounted using a discount rate of 5-percent and is approximately $8 million at March 31, 2012. The undiscounted estimate of these costs is approximately $10 million.

     Following are the components of the Superfund and non-Superfund environmental reserves (in millions):

      Superfund Sites       Non-Superfund Sites       Total
Balance at September 30, 2011 $ 2   $ 15   $ 17  
Payments and other — (3 ) (3 )
Accruals(1)   1 3 4
Balance at March 31, 2012   $      3 $      15 $      18
 
       (1)        Includes $2 million recognized in loss from discontinued operations in the consolidated statement of operations.

     Environmental reserves are included in Other Current Liabilities (see Note 15) and Other Liabilities (see Note 16) in the consolidated balance sheet.

     The actual amount of costs or damages for which the company may be held responsible could materially exceed the foregoing estimates because of uncertainties, including the financial condition of other potentially responsible parties, the success of the remediation, discovery of new contamination and other factors that make it difficult to predict actual costs accurately. However, based on management’s assessment, after consulting with outside advisors that specialize in environmental matters, and subject to the difficulties inherent in estimating these future costs, the company believes that its expenditures for environmental capital investment and remediation necessary to comply with present regulations governing environmental protection and other expenditures for the resolution of environmental claims will not have a material effect on the company’s business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, in future periods, new laws and regulations, changes in remediation plans, advances in technology and additional information about the ultimate clean-up remedies could significantly change the company’s estimates. Management cannot assess the possible effect of compliance with future requirements.

   Asset Retirement Obligations

     The company has identified conditional asset retirement obligations for which a reasonable estimate of fair value could not be made because the potential settlement dates cannot be determined at this time. Due to the long term, productive nature of the company’s manufacturing operations, absent plans or expectations of plans to initiate asset retirement activities, the company was not able to reasonably estimate the settlement date for the related obligations. Therefore, the company has not recognized conditional asset retirement obligations for which there are no plans or expectations of plans to retire the asset.

   Asbestos

     Maremont Corporation (“Maremont”), a subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Maremont had approximately 21,000 pending asbestos-related claims at March 31, 2012 and September 30, 2011. Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused their injuries. Plaintiffs’ lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product. For these reasons, Maremont does not consider the number of claims filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in determining its asbestos-related liability.

     Maremont’s asbestos-related reserves and corresponding asbestos-related recoveries are summarized as follows (in millions):

      March 31, 2012       September 30, 2011
Pending and future claims   $      75   $      77
Asbestos-related insurance recoveries   67 67
 

     A portion of the asbestos-related recoveries and reserves are included in Other Current Assets and Liabilities, with the majority of the amounts recorded in Other Assets and Liabilities (see Notes 12, 14, 15 and 16).

     Prior to February 2001, Maremont participated in the Center for Claims Resolution (“CCR”) and shared with other CCR members in the payment of defense and indemnity costs for asbestos-related claims. The CCR handled the resolution and processing of asbestos claims on behalf of its members until February 2001, when it was reorganized and discontinued negotiating shared settlements. Since the CCR was reorganized in 2001, Maremont has handled asbestos-related claims through its own defense counsel and has taken a more aggressive defensive approach that involves examining the merits of each asbestos-related claim. Although the company expects legal defense costs to continue at higher levels than when it participated in the CCR, the company believes its litigation strategy has reduced the average indemnity cost per claim.

     Pending and Future Claims: Maremont engages Bates White LLC (Bates White), a consulting firm with extensive experience estimating costs associated with asbestos litigation, to assist with determining the estimated cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against Maremont. Bates White prepares these cost estimates on a semi-annual basis in March and September each year. Although it is not possible to estimate the full range of costs because of various uncertainties, Bates White advised Maremont that it would be possible to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of the cost of the probable settlement and defense costs of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims, based on historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future.

     Bates White provided an estimate of the reasonably possible range of Maremont’s obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten years of $75 million to $85 million. After consultation with Bates White, Maremont determined that as of March 31, 2012, the most likely and probable liability for pending and future claims over the next ten years is $75 million. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Maremont.

     Assumptions: The following assumptions were made by Maremont after consultation with Bates White and are included in their study:

  • Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten year period ending in fiscal year 2022. The ten-year assumption is considered appropriate as Maremont has reached certain longer-term agreements with key plaintiff law firms and filings of mesothelioma claims have been relatively stable over the last few years resulting in an improvement in the reliability of future projections over a longer time period;
     
  • Maremont believes that the litigation environment will change significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with asbestos-related personal injury claims will decline for each year further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;
     
  • The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims filed in Madison County, Illinois, a jurisdiction where a substantial amount of Maremont’s claims are filed, will decline to reflect average outcomes throughout the United States;
     
  • Defense and processing costs for pending and future claims filed outside of Madison County, Illinois will be at the level consistent with Maremont’s prior experience; and
     
  • The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims with plaintiffs’ law firms in jurisdictions without an established history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated. Recent changes in tort law and insufficient settlement history make estimating a liability for these nonmalignant claims difficult and uncertain.

     Recoveries: Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims. The coverage also reimburses Maremont for any indemnity paid on those claims. The coverage is provided by several insurance carriers based on insurance agreements in place. Incorporating historical information with respect to buy-outs and settlements of coverage, and excluding any policies in dispute, the insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities is $67 million as of March 31, 2012. The difference between the estimated liability and insurance receivable is primarily related to proceeds received from settled insurance policies. Certain insurance policies have been settled in cash prior to the ultimate settlement of the related asbestos liabilities. Amounts received from insurance settlements generally reduce recorded insurance receivables. Receivables for policies in dispute are not recorded.

     The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to predict. The future litigation environment for Maremont could change significantly from its past experience, due, for example, to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of plaintiffs’ law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or regulatory developments; Maremont’s approach to defending claims; or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the assumptions with respect to the nature of pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Maremont’s asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the company’s financial condition and results of operations.

     Rockwell International (Rockwell) — ArvinMeritor, Inc. (AM), a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. Currently there are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name AM, together with many other companies, as defendants. However, the company does not consider the number of claims filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in determining asbestos-related liabilities. A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of Rockwell’s products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell’s products, and past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never identify any of Rockwell’s products. For those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell’s products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. The company defends these cases vigorously. Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants.

     The company engages Bates White to assist with determining whether it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company. Although it is not possible to estimate the full range of costs because of various uncertainties, Bates White advised the company that it would be able to determine an estimate of probable defense and indemnity costs which could be incurred to resolve pending and future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims. After consultation with Bates White, the company determined that as of March 31, 2012 and September 30, 2011 the probable liability for pending and future claims over the next four years is $21 million and $19 million, respectively. The accrual estimates are based on historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future. The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation and resolution of the litigation with the insurance companies make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate resolution of asbestos claims beyond four years. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the settlement process.

     Rockwell maintained insurance coverage that management believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance retentions, for most of these claims. The company has initiated claims against certain of these carriers to enforce the insurance policies, which are currently being disputed. The company expects to recover some portion of defense and indemnity costs it has incurred to date, over and above self-insured retentions, and some portion of the costs for defending asbestos claims going forward. Based on consultation with advisors and underlying analysis performed by management, the company has recorded an insurance receivable related to Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities of $7 million and $9 million at March 31, 2012 and September 30, 2011, respectively. If the assumptions with respect to the nature of pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the company’s financial condition and results of operations.

     On March 4, 2010, Gordon Bankhead and his spouse filed suit in Superior Court for Alameda County, California, against more than 40 defendants that Mr. Bankhead claims manufactured or supplied asbestos-containing products he allegedly was exposed to during his career as a janitor; as an ordnance specialist in the National Guard; and as an automotive parts-man. By the time trial began on October 27, 2010, Mr. and Mrs. Bankhead had settled with all defendants except for the company and three other defendants. The claims against these four defendants were limited to Mr. Bankhead’s work as an automotive parts-man. On December 23, 2010, the jury ruled against all four defendants, including the company. The company was assessed $375,000 in compensatory damages for which it has recorded a liability at March 31, 2012. Additionally, the company was assessed $4.5 million in punitive damages. The company filed an appeal on the punitive damages award to the California Court of Appeals. Possible outcomes of the appeal included vacating the damages award in its entirety, reducing the award, affirming the award in its entirety or remanding the case back to the trial court. Accordingly, the possible estimated range of loss at September 30, 2011 was $0 to $4.5 million. Because of the uncertainty associated with the litigation including the appeal process, the company was previously unable to determine an estimate within this range which was considered more probable than others and accordingly did not record any liability for punitive damages at September 30, 2011. On April 19, 2012, the California Court of Appeals issued its opinion, affirming the trial court judgment in full. The company is considering its options, but given the opinion issued by the California Court of Appeals in April 2012, the company increased its liability for this matter from $375,000 to $5.6 million at March 31, 2012.

   Indemnifications

     In December 2005, the company guaranteed a third party’s obligation to reimburse another party for payment of health and prescription drug benefits to a group of retired employees. The retirees were former employees of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the company prior to it being acquired by the company. The wholly-owned subsidiary, which was part of the company’s light vehicle aftermarket business, was sold by the company in fiscal year 2006. Prior to May 2009, except as set forth hereinafter, the third party met its obligations to reimburse the other party. In May 2009, the third party filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code requiring the company to recognize its obligations under the guarantee. The company recorded a $28 million liability in fiscal year 2009 for this matter. During the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, the company recorded a $4 million charge in income from discontinued operations to increase the liability based on changes in demographic data. At March 31, 2012 and September 30, 2011, the remaining estimated liability for this matter was approximately $22 million and $23 million, respectively.

     The company has recorded indemnity liabilities of $5 million related to the sale of its Body Systems business, primarily associated with income tax matters and $15 million related to the sale of its 57-percent interest in Meritor Suspension Systems Company related to its share of potential obligations related to taxes, pension funding shortfall, environmental and other contingencies. These amounts are included in other current liabilities and other liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

     The company has provided indemnifications in conjunction with certain transactions, primarily divestitures. These indemnities address a variety of matters, which may include environmental, tax, asbestos and employment-related matters, and the periods of indemnification vary in duration. The company’s maximum obligations under these indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated. The company is not aware of any claims or other information that would give rise to material payments under such indemnifications. 

   Other

     On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that several filter manufacturers and their affiliated corporate entities, including a prior subsidiary of the company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive filters. This suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the defendants. Several parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. The cases have been consolidated into a multi-district litigation proceeding in Federal court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois based on these same allegations. On May 25, 2010, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Washington informed the company that it also was investigating the allegations raised in these suits. On August 9, 2010, the County of Suffolk, New York, filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York based on the same allegations. The case was transferred to the multi-district litigation proceeding in Illinois, but has been dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement that continues until thirty days after the claims by the indirect purchasers in the multi-district litigation are terminated, settled, or dismissed. On April 14, 2011, the judge in that multi-district litigation granted a stay on discovery and depositions until July 25, 2011. The stay was subsequently extended until August 23, 2011 and, on October 12, 2011, was further extended pending the court’s ruling on various motions. On January 19, 2012, counsel for the defendants and counsel for all purported class plaintiffs participated in a settlement conference that was facilitated by the magistrate for the judge in the multi-district litigation. None of the parties were able to reach any agreement at that conference and, on January 20, 2012, the court ruled on the above-referenced motions and vacated the stay on discovery and depositions. In February 2012 the other remaining defendants reached preliminary settlement with all plaintiffs for $13 million, leaving the company as the sole remaining defendant. These preliminary settlements were allocated 65 percent to the direct purchasers and 35 percent to the remaining plaintiffs. In April 2012, the company reached an agreement in principle to settle with certain plaintiffs for $3.1 million.

     Based on management’s assessment, the company has recognized a $9 million liability in discontinued operations at March 31, 2012 for this matter. The company believes it has meritorious defenses against the claims raised in all of these actions and intends to vigorously defend itself. However, there is considerable uncertainty around the potential outcomes in a jury trial, and if this matter were to proceed to trial and were ultimately decided by a jury in favor of plaintiffs, it is possible that awarded damages could materially exceed the recorded liability by an amount that the company is unable to reasonably estimate at this time.

     In addition, various lawsuits, claims and proceedings, other than those specifically disclosed in the consolidated financial statements, have been or may be instituted or asserted against the company, relating to the conduct of the company’s business, including those pertaining to product liability, warranty or recall claims, intellectual property, safety and health, contract and employment matters. Although the outcome of other litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, and some lawsuits, claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to the company, management believes the disposition of matters that are pending will not have a material effect on the company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.