Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 11—Commitments and Contingencies

Income Tax Litigation

        On December 27, 1989, the Company and most of its U.S. subsidiaries each filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Proceedings") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (the "Bankruptcy Court"). The Company emerged from bankruptcy on March 17, 1995 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization dated as of December 9, 1994, as modified on March 1, 1995 (as so modified the "Consensual Plan"). Despite the confirmation and effectiveness of the Consensual Plan, the Bankruptcy Court continues to have jurisdiction over, among other things, the resolution of disputed prepetition claims against the Company and other matters that may arise in connection with or related to the Consensual Plan, including claims related to federal income taxes.

        In connection with the U.S. Bankruptcy Proceedings, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") filed a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court (the "Proof of Claim") for a substantial amount of taxes, interest and penalties with respect to fiscal years ended August 31, 1983 through May 31, 1994. The Company filed an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court disputing the Proof of Claim (the "Adversary Proceeding") and the various issues have been litigated in the Bankruptcy Court. An opinion was issued by the Bankruptcy Court in June 2010 as to the remaining disputed issues. The Bankruptcy Court instructed both parties to submit a proposed final order addressing all issues that have been litigated for the tax years 1983 through 1995 in the Adversary Proceeding by late August 2010. At the request of both parties, the Bankruptcy Court granted an extension of time of 90 days from the initial submission date to submit the proposed final order. Additional extensions of time to submit the proposed final order were granted in November 2010, February 2011, May 2011, September 2011 and January 2012. At the request of both parties, in May 2012 the Bankruptcy Court granted an additional extension of time until January 8, 2013 to submit the proposed final order.

        The amounts initially asserted by the Proof of Claim do not reflect the subsequent resolution of various issues through settlements or concessions by the parties. The Company believes that any financial exposure with respect to those issues that have not been resolved or settled in the Proof of Claim is limited to interest and possible penalties and the amount of tax assessed has been offset by tax reductions in future years. All of the issues in the Proof of Claim, which have not been settled or conceded, have been litigated before the Bankruptcy Court and are subject to appeal but only at the conclusion of the entire Adversary Proceeding.

        The Company believes that those portions of the Proof of Claim, which remain in dispute or are subject to appeal, substantially overstate the amount of taxes allegedly owed. However, because of the complexity of the issues presented and the uncertainties associated with litigation, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the Adversary Proceeding.

        The IRS completed its audit of the Company's federal income tax returns for the years ended May 31, 2000 through December 31, 2005. The IRS issued 30-Day Letters to the Company in June 2010, proposing changes to tax for these tax years. The Company believes its tax filing positions have substantial merit and filed a formal protest with the IRS within the prescribed 30-day time limit for those issues which have not been previously settled or conceded. The IRS filed a rebuttal to the Company's formal protest and the case was assigned to the Appeals Division of the IRS. The Appeals Division convened a hearing on March 8, 2011 and heard arguments from both parties as to issues not settled or conceded for the 2000 through 2005 audit period. At this time, no final resolution has been reached with the Appeals Division pertaining to these matters. The disputed issues in this audit period are similar to the issues remaining in the Proof of Claim and consequently, should the IRS prevail on its positions, the Company believes its financial exposure is limited to interest and possible penalties.

        During the second quarter of 2012, the IRS completed its audit of the Company's federal income tax returns for the years 2006 through 2008 and has proposed adjustments to tax for these periods. The IRS issued a 30-Day Letter with proposed adjustments and the Company responded to the IRS within the prescribed 30-day time limit. The proposed adjustments are similar to issues in a prior Proof of Claim and include a proposed adjustment to a worthless stock deduction reported in the Company's 2008 federal income tax return. During the third quarter of 2012, the Company received notification from the IRS that the audit of the 2006 through 2008 tax years has been reopened for further development. In 2008, the Company recorded a benefit attributable to the worthless stock deduction of $167.0 million as a result of the deemed liquidation of its homebuilding business on December 31, 2008. The Company has evaluated all of the proposed adjustments, including the proposed adjustment related to the worthless stock deduction, and believes the tax filing positions have substantial merit.

        The IRS is conducting an audit of the Company's income tax returns filed for 2009 and 2010. Since the IRS examination is ongoing, any resulting tax deficiency or overpayment cannot be estimated at this time. During 2012, the statute of limitations for assessing additional income tax deficiencies will expire for certain tax years in several state tax jurisdictions. The expiration of the statute of limitations for these years is expected to have an immaterial impact on the total uncertain income tax positions and net income.

        The Company believes that all of its current and prior tax filing positions have substantial merit and intends to defend vigorously any tax claims asserted. While results cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that it has sufficient accruals to address any claims and that the final outcomes of such claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Environmental Matters

        The Company is subject to a wide variety of laws and regulations concerning the protection of the environment, both with respect to the construction and operation of its plants, mines and other facilities and with respect to remediating environmental conditions that may exist at its own and other properties.

        The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. The Company accrues for environmental expenses resulting from existing conditions that relate to past operations when the costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated.

Walter Coke, Inc.

        Walter Coke entered into a decree order in 1989 ("the Order") relative to a Resource Conservation Recovery Act ("RCRA") compliance program mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). A RCRA Facility Investigation ("RFI") Work Plan was prepared which proposed investigative tasks to assess the presence of contamination at the Walter Coke facility. A work plan was approved in 1994 and the Phase I investigations were conducted and completed between 1995 and 1999. Phase II investigations for the Chemical Plant/Coke Plant and Biological Treatment Facility and Sewers/Land Disposal Areas at the Walter Coke facility were performed in 2000 and 2001 and are complete. At the end of 2004, the EPA re-directed Walter Coke's RFI efforts toward completion of the Environmental Indicator ("EI") determinations for the Current Human Exposures. This EI effort was completed to assist the EPA in meeting goals set by the Government Performance Results Act ("GPRA") for RCRA by 2005. Walter Coke implemented the approved EI sampling plan in April 2005. The EPA approved and finalized the EI determinations for Walter Coke's Birmingham facility in September 2005. In an effort to refocus the RFI, the EPA approved technical comments on the Phase II RFI report and the report submitted as part of the EI effort. A Phase III work plan was submitted to the EPA during the first quarter of 2007. The EPA commented on the Phase III plan and Walter Coke responded. Subsequently, a meeting was held with the EPA during the third quarter of 2007 with the objective of finalization of the Phase III plan. Phase III sampling reports were submitted in March 2009 and June 2009. Beyond the scope of the Phase III activity performed in 2007 through 2009, additional requests by EPA expanded the scope of the project which required additional sampling and testing. In January 2008, as a follow-up to the EI determination, the EPA requested that Walter Coke perform additional soil sampling and testing in the neighborhoods surrounding its facility. Subsequent to EPA's initial request and presentation of a residential sampling plan to EPA by Walter Coke, the plan was finalized and community involvement initiated, with sampling and testing commencing in July 2009. The results of this sampling and testing were submitted to the EPA for review in December 2009. In conjunction with the plan, Walter Coke agreed to remediate portions of 23 properties based on the 2009 sampling and that process was started in July 2011. As of September 30, 2012, Walter Coke had completed soil removal action at portions of 16 residential properties for which access agreements were obtained. Effective September 24, 2012, Walter Coke reached a new agreement with the EPA for continued environmental work on Walter Coke property. The new agreement updates and replaces the Order originally reached with EPA in 1989.

        In December 2011, the EPA notified Walter Coke in the form of a General Notice Letter that it proposed that the offsite remediation project be classified and managed as a Superfund site under CERCLA, allowing other Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP's) to potentially be held responsible. However, the EPA is proceeding directly with the offsite sampling work and deferring any further enforcement actions or decisions, including evaluating whether Walter Coke or any other company is in fact a PRP, to a subsequent time.

        The Company has incurred costs to investigate the presence of contamination at the Walter Coke facility and to define remediation actions to address this environmental liability in accordance with the agreements reached with the EPA under the RFI and the residential soil sampling conducted by Walter Coke in the neighborhoods surrounding its facility. At September 30, 2012, the Company has an amount accrued that is probable and can be reasonably estimated for the costs to be incurred to identify and define remediation actions, as well as to perform certain remedial tasks which can be quantified, in accordance with the agreements reached and proposals that continue to be coordinated with the EPA to date. The amount of this accrual is not material to the financial statements. While it is probable that the Company will incur additional future costs to remediate environmental liabilities at the Walter Coke facility, the amount of such additional costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. With the finalization of the RCRA order, the Company will engage in corrective measures studies over the next 24 months which will facilitate definition of remediation activities that will be required on its site. Additionally, pending EPA's sampling activities in the neighborhoods and identification of PRP's, the Company at this time is unable to reasonably estimate the cost of offsite remediation activities that may be required. Although no assurances can be given that the Company will not be required in the future to make material expenditures relating to the Walter Coke site or other sites, management does not believe at this time that the cleanup costs, if any, associated with these sites will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements, but such cleanup costs could be material to results of operations in a future reporting period.

        The Company and Walter Coke were named in a suit filed by Louise Moore on April 26, 2011 (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and Walter Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. This is a putative civil class action alleging state law tort claims arising from the alleged presence on properties of substances, including arsenic, BaP, and other hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of current and/or historic operations in the area conducted by the companies and/or their predecessors. This action is still in the early stages of litigation. On June 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint eliminating Walter Energy as a defendant and amending the claims alleged against Walter Coke to relate to Walter Coke's alleged conduct for the period commencing after March 2, 1995. Based on initial evaluation, management believes that both procedural and substantive defenses are available to the Company and Walter Coke intends to vigorously defend this matter. No specific dollar value has been claimed in the suit's demand for monetary damages. On June 20, 2011, Walter Coke filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint which was heard on October 28, 2011. On September 28, 2012, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the motion. In partially granting Walter Coke's motion, the Court held that the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was not valid and that class action-related claims must be dismissed (with leave to re-plead) due to an improperly defined class. In partially ruling for the plaintiff, the Court held that at the pleading stage the plaintiff's claims could not be dismissed on rule of repose grounds or due to insufficient pleading. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 29, 2012.

Securities Class Actions and Shareholder Derivative Actions

        On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are: Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President of Walter's Canadian and European Operations (collectively the "Individual Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011.

        These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The complaints further allege that the Company and the Individual Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claim violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C. Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for the consolidated action. On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in this action. The consolidated amended complaint names as an additional defendant Joseph Leonard, a current director and former interim CEO of Walter, in addition to the previously named defendants. Walter Energy and the other named defendants believe that there is no merit to the claims alleged and intend to vigorously defend these actions.

        On February 7, 2012, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the 10th Judicial Circuit of Alabama (Israni v. Clark et al.). On February 10, 2012, a second shareholder derivative suit was filed in the same court (Himmel v. Scheller et al.), and on February 16, 2012 a third derivative suit was filed (Walters v. Scheller et al.). All three complaints name as defendants the Company's current Board of Directors, Keith Calder and Neil Winkelmann. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in each complaint. The three complaints allege similar facts to those alleged in the Rush complaint. The complaints variously assert state law claims for breaches of fiduciary duties for alleged failures to maintain internal controls and to properly manage the Company, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement and abuse of control. The three derivative actions seek, among other things, recovery for the Company for damages that the Company suffered as a result of alleged wrongful conduct. On April 11, 2012, the Court consolidated these shareholder derivative suits. Walter Energy thereafter entered into a stipulation with the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative suit, pursuant to which all proceedings in the derivative action were stayed pending the filing of the consolidated amended complaint in the class action. On September 19, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated shareholder derivative complaint. Plaintiffs have agreed to stay the action pending resolution of Walter's motion to dismiss in the putative securities class action.

        On March 1, 2012, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Makohin v. Clark, et al.). On September 27, 2012 a second shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the same court (Sinerius v. Beatty, et al.) Both complaints name as defendants the Company's current Board of Directors and Keith Calder. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in each complaint. These complaints, like the state court derivative claims, allege similar facts to those alleged in the Rush complaint. The Makohin complaint asserts state law claims for breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment, while the Sinerius complaint asserts these same claims as well as claims for abuse of control and gross mismanagement. Both actions seek, among other things, recovery for the Company for damages that the Company suffered as a result of alleged wrongful conduct and restitution from defendants of all profits, benefits and other compensation that they wrongfully obtained.

        Walter Energy and the other named defendants believe that there is no merit to the claims alleged in these shareholder derivative lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend these actions.

        In November 2009, Western Coal was named as a defendant in a statement of claim issued by a plaintiff who seeks leave of the Ontario Courts to proceed with a securities class action. This claim also named Western Coal's former President and director, John Hogg, and two of its non-executive directors, John Brodie and Robert Chase, as defendants.

        The plaintiff subsequently delivered an amended claim that added new allegations that seeks to have the amended claim certified as a class action separately from the proposed securities class action allegations. The new allegations focused on certain transactions the plaintiff claims were oppressive and unfair to the interests of shareholders. The amended claim included additional defendants of Western Coal's former Chairman, John Byrne, its remaining non-executive directors John Conlon and Charles Pitcher, Audley European Opportunities Master Fund Limited, Audley Capital Management Limited, and Audley Advisors LLP.

        The proposed securities claims allege that those persons who acquired or disposed of Western Coal shares between November 14, 2007 and December 10, 2007 should be entitled to recover $200 million for general damages and $20 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleges that Western Coal's consolidated financial statements for the second quarter of fiscal 2008 and the accompanying news release issued on November 14, 2007 misrepresented Western Coal's financial condition and that Western Coal failed to make full, plain and true disclosure of all material facts and changes.

        The plaintiff's oppression claims are advanced in respect of Western Coal's security holders in the period between April 26, 2007 and July 13, 2009. The claims are that the defendants caused Western Coal to enter into transactions that had a dilutive effect on the interests of its shareholders. The damages associated with these alleged dilutive effects have not been developed or quantified.

        The plaintiff's motions to proceed with securities claims and also to certify the securities and oppression claims as class actions were argued in June 2012. The court dismissed each of these motions on September 14, 2012. The Company intends to seek reimbursement of the costs incurred in responding to the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff has appealed.

        Western Coal and the other named defendants will continue to vigorously defend the allegations. They maintain that there is no merit to the claims and that the damages are without foundation and excessive.

Miscellaneous Litigation

        The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of other lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of their businesses. The Company records costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The effect of the outcome of these matters on the Company's future results of operations cannot be predicted with certainty as any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. While the results of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that the final outcome of such other litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Commitments and Contingencies—Other

        In the opinion of management, accruals associated with contingencies incurred in the normal course of business are sufficient. Resolution of existing known contingencies is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements.