LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 19 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS We operate in highly regulated industries and respond to regulatory inquiries or investigations from time to time that may be initiated for a variety of reasons. At any given time, the Company has matters at various stages of resolution with the applicable government authorities. We are also routinely involved in actual or threatened legal actions, including those involving alleged personal injuries and commercial, employment, environmental, tax, and other issues. The outcomes of these matters are not within the Company’s complete control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, claimants seek damages, as well as other relief, including injunctive relief, that could require significant expenditures or result in lost revenue. In accordance with applicable accounting standards, the Company establishes an accrued liability for loss contingencies related to legal and regulatory matters when the loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. If the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a loss is not probable or a probable loss is not reasonably estimable, no liability is recorded. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. These accruals represent management’s best estimate of probable losses and, in such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the amounts accrued. Estimates of probable losses resulting from litigation and regulatory proceedings are difficult to predict. Legal and regulatory matters inherently involve significant uncertainties based on, among other factors, the jurisdiction and stage of the proceedings, developments in the applicable facts or law, and the unpredictability of the ultimate determination of the merits of any claim, any defenses the Company may assert against that claim and the amount of any damages that may be awarded. The Company’s accrued liabilities for loss contingencies related to legal and regulatory matters may change in the future as a result of new developments, including, but not limited to, the occurrence of new legal matters, changes in the law or regulatory environment, adverse or favorable rulings, newly discovered facts relevant to the matter, or changes in the strategy for the matter. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. Contract Class Action Lawsuits. Beginning on March 12, 2013, we were served with several class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted, among other things, that we had imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaints sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief. These related actions were ultimately transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the “MDL Action”). On February 16, 2017, the Court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Court certified a class of “[a]ll persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003 through the date of trial resided in the United States (except Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as ‘Small Quantity’ or ‘SQ’ customer, and were charged and paid more than their contractually-agreed price for Stericycle’s medical waste disposal goods and services pursuant to Stericycle’s automated price increase policy. Governmental entities whose claims were asserted in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. shall be excluded from the class.” The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached an agreement in principle for settlement in July 2017, which was subsequently documented in a definitive settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) on October 17, 2017. The Settlement provided a global resolution of all cases and claims against the Company in the MDL Action. It also provided that the Company would establish a common fund of $295.0 million from which would be paid all compensation to members of the settlement class, attorneys’ fees to class counsel, incentive awards to the named class representatives and all costs of notice and administration. It also provided that our existing contracts with customers would remain in force, while we would also establish as part of the Settlement guidelines for future price increases and provide customers additional transparency regarding such increases. Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The Settlement provided that, upon final approval by the Court following a fairness hearing, it would fully and finally resolve all claims against the Company alleged in the MDL Action. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement following a hearing on October 26, 2017. The fairness hearing was held on March 8, 2018. The Court granted approval of the Proposed MDL Settlement that same day. The Court entered final judgment on May 8, 2018. No appeal was filed, and the Proposed MDL Settlement became finally effective on June 7, 2018 (the “Final Settlement”). The Company funded the Final Settlement on July 6, 2018. Certain class members who have opted out of the Final Settlement have filed lawsuits against the Company, and the Company will defend and resolve those actions. The Company has accrued its estimate of the probable loss for these collective matters, which is not material. Securities Class Action Lawsuit. On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to sue for themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of our publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in our public offering of depositary shares, each representing a 1/10th interest in a share of our mandatory convertible preferred stock, on or around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the Company, our directors and certain of our current and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering. The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose those alleged practices in public filings and other statements issued during the proposed class period beginning February 7, 2013 and ending April 28, 2016. On August 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July 28, 2016, inclusive. On October 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Amended Complaint adding the Company as a named defendant in plaintiff’s claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act, which had previously been asserted only against the Underwriters and certain officers and directors. On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead Counsel. On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints for a class period from February 7, 2013 through September 18, 2016. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 1, 2017. On May 19, 2017, plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss and on June 19, 2017, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion. On March 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed a further Amended Complaint, alleging additional corrective disclosures and extending the purported class period through February 21, 2018. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on May 25, 2018. The Motion was fully briefed on July 13, 2018, and awaited a ruling by the Court. The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached an agreement in principle for settlement in December 2018 (the “Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement”). As we disclosed in a current report on Form 8-K filed on December 20, 2018, the terms of the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement provide that the Company will establish a common fund of $45 million, from which will be paid all compensation to members of the settlement class, attorneys’ fees to class counsel, incentive awards to the named class representatives and all costs of notice and administration. The large majority of the $45 million common fund established pursuant to the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement will be paid by the Company’s insurers. In the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement, we admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever. We entered into the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement in order to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. On February 14, 2019, the Company executed a definitive written settlement agreement (the “Settlement”), which incorporated the terms of the agreement in principle announced in December 2018. The Settlement incorporated the terms of the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement, described above, and proposes a global resolution of all cases and claims against the Company in the Securities Class Action. Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The Settlement provided that, upon final approval by the Court following a fairness hearing, it would fully and finally resolve all claims against the Company alleged in the Securities Class Action. On February 25, 2019, plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action filed Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for an Order Preliminarily Approving Class Settlement and Authorizing Dissemination of Notice of Settlement (the “Preliminary Approval Motion”). The Preliminary Approval Motion asks the Court to preliminarily approve the Settlement, to approve the manner and content of the notice to be given to potential class members, and to set a schedule for, among other things, deadlines for potential class members to file claims, object to the Settlement, or seek exclusion from the Settlement class. The Preliminary Approval Motion is pending before the Court. Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits. On September 1, 2016, a purported stockholder filed a putative derivative action complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against certain officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders by causing the Company to allegedly overcharge certain customers in breach of those customers’ contracts, otherwise provide unsatisfactory customer service and injure customer relationships, and make materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies between February 7, 2013 and the present. On March 1, 2017, another purported stockholder filed a putative derivative action complaint containing substantially similar allegations in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against certain officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as nominal defendant. The Company notes, among other things, that, in addition to failing to make the required demand on the board of directors, both of these filings are in violation of the Company’s Bylaws, which require any such actions to be brought in a court in Delaware. On June 29, 2017, the Court entered an agreed order consolidating the two putative derivative actions for all purposes under the caption Kausal Shah v. Charles A. Alutto, et al. On July 11, 2017, the Court entered a further agreed order appointing lead counsel for plaintiffs and staying the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the securities class action discussed above. Pursuant to the agreed order, defendants reserved all potential defenses to both actions, should the stay be lifted. On February 14, 2019, the Court entered an Agreed Order to Lift Stay and Set Briefing Schedule, under which the Court lifted the stay of litigation, granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint on or before April 15, 2019, and set a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss by the Company. On March 26, 2018, Alvin Janklow v. Charles A. Alutto, et al., was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Delaware. On April 16, 2018, John Brennan v. Charles A. Alutto, et al., was filed in the same court. On May 16, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating Brennan and Janklow. On April 18, 2018, the company filed a motion to stay the combined Janklow and Brennan cases, and the Court granted the Company’s motion. On January 11, 2019, the parties stipulated to, and the Court entered an order, lifting the stay to allow the Company to file a motion to dismiss and setting a briefing schedule on that motion. On January 25, 2019, Stericycle filed its motion to dismiss; on February 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion; the Company has until March 12, 2019 to file a reply. On April 12, 2018, Rick Siu v. Mark C. Miller, et al., was filed in Delaware Chancery Court. By agreement of the parties, the Siu case was stayed by order of the Court on May 24, 2018, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the securities class action discussed above. The parties subsequently engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter. On February 25, 2019, the parties executed and filed with the Court a written Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release (the “Siu Settlement”). Under the Siu Settlement, the Defendants will implement and/or maintain certain corporate governance changes for a period of four years following approval of the settlement. In addition, the Company will receive payment from applicable insurance in the amount of $7.5 million, less any amounts ordered by the Court to be paid for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses or as a service award to Plaintiff. Neither the Company nor the Defendants have admitted any fault or wrongdoing whatsoever in connection with the Siu Settlement, but have entered into the Siu Settlement in order to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The Siu Settlement remains subject to Court approval at a final hearing, which the Court has not yet scheduled. On October 18, 2016, the Company received a letter from an attorney purporting to represent a current stockholder of the Company demanding, pursuant to Del. Ct. Ch. R. 23.1, that the Company’s Board of Directors take action to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and directors of the Company. The factual allegations set forth in the letter were similar to those asserted in the Securities Class Action Lawsuit and the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits. The Company’s Board of Directors constituted a Special Demand Review Committee to investigate the claims made in the demand letter and the Committee retained independent counsel to assist with the investigation. At the conclusion of its investigation, the Committee’s counsel advised the stockholder that the Board had completed its investigation and determined not to pursue legal action. On July 30, 2018, the purported stockholder on whose behalf the demand letter was sent filed a stockholder derivative action, Damon Turney v. Mark C. Miller, et al., in the Federal District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the demand was wrongfully refused. The company moved to dismiss the action on December 5, 2018. The motion was fully briefed on February 8, 2019, and is currently pending before the Court. On January 22, 2019, the Company received a letter from an attorney purporting to represent another current stockholder of the Company setting forth allegations and demands substantially similar to those previously presented in the October 18, 2016 demand letter, the Securities Class Action Lawsuit and the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits. The Company’s Board of Directors referred this letter to the Special Demand Review Committee and its independent counsel for consideration. After the Committee had considered the January 22, 2019 letter in light of its prior investigation, the Committee’s counsel advised the stockholder that the Board had determined not to pursue legal action. We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these lawsuits, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable and (ii) in our judgment, the factual and legal allegations asserted by plaintiffs are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other proceedings with circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against each of the derivative lawsuits. TCPA Lawsuit. On June 3, 2016, a plaintiff filed a putative class action, captioned Ibrahim v. Stericycle, Inc., No. 16-cv-4294 (N.D. Ill.), against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary, Stericycle Communication Solutions, Inc., under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), asserting that the defendants called plaintiff and others in violation of that statute. Plaintiff challenges our use of pre-recorded messages that urge the owners of recalled products to return or obtain repairs for those products. Plaintiff seeks certification of two nationwide classes. One class includes people who received one or more cellular telephone calls from Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice message relating to a product recall, where the called party was not the same individual who, according to Stericycle’s records, was the intended recipient of the call. The second class includes people who received one or more cellular telephone calls from Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice message relating to a product recall after such person had communicated to Stericycle that Stericycle did not have consent to make any such calls to their cellular telephone number. On July 28, 2016, we answered the complaint, denying the material allegations and raising certain affirmative defenses. Among the asserted defenses is the “emergency” exception to the TCPA, which exempts calls made to promote public health and safety. On December 19, 2016, before any substantial discovery in the case, we filed a motion for summary judgment primarily on the basis of the “emergency” exception. On February 1, 2017, plaintiff responded to our motion by requesting additional discovery. The court permitted plaintiff to obtain some but not all of the requested discovery, and we have provided additional documents in response to that order. On April 5, 2017, plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint which would add a claim under the Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act (which does not include an “emergency” exception) and certain additional allegations. We filed an opposition to this motion on April 28, 2017, contending that the proposed amendments are futile and that we are entitled to summary judgment. On June 27, 2017, the court permitted plaintiff to file the amended complaint. We answered plaintiff’s amended complaint, denying liability, and in light of the amended complaint, withdrew our motion for summary judgment without prejudice. The parties conducted discovery, which closed on May 15, 2018. On September 25, 2018, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the case with prejudice, and the Court dismissed the case with prejudice on October 23, 2018. FCPA Investigation. On June 12, 2017, the SEC issued a subpoena to the Company, requesting documents and information relating to the Company’s compliance with the FCPA or other foreign or domestic anti-corruption laws with respect to certain of the Company’s operations in Latin America. In addition, the DOJ has notified the Company that it is investigating this matter in parallel with the SEC. The Company is cooperating with these agencies. The Company is also conducting an internal investigation of these and other matters, including outside of Latin America, under the oversight of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors and with the assistance of outside counsel, and this investigation has found evidence of improper conduct. We have not accrued any amounts in respect of this matter, as we cannot estimate any reasonably possible loss or any range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because, based on what we know now, in our judgment, the factual and legal issues presented in this matter are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates. Environmental Matters. Our Environmental Solutions business is regulated by federal, state and local laws enacted to regulate the discharge of materials into the environment, the generation, transportation and disposal of waste, and the cleanup of contaminated soil and groundwater and protection of the environment. Because of the highly regulated nature of this business, we frequently become a party to legal or administrative proceedings involving various governmental authorities and other interested parties. The issues involved in these proceedings generally relate to alleged violations of existing permits and licenses or alleged responsibility under federal or state Superfund laws to remediate contamination at properties owned either by us or by other parties to which either we or the prior owners of certain of its facilities shipped wastes. From time to time, we may be subject to fines or penalties in regulatory proceedings relating primarily to waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. North Salt Lake, Utah. We have continued to toll the statute of limitations with the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah (the “USAO”) relating to an investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) into past Clean Air Act emissions and permit requirements, as previously alleged in the notice of violation (the “NOV”) issued by the State of Utah Division of Air Quality (the “DAQ”). The NOV resulted in our December 2014 settlement with the DAQ, as previously disclosed. The government indicated that the matter will be resolved civilly, not criminally, and the parties have reached agreement in principle, to be documented in the form of a civil consent decree, under which the company will undertake a Supplemental Environmental Project and pay a civil penalty under the Clean Air Act. The Company has accrued the total amount of the agreement in principle. Rancho Cordova, California. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) alleged violations of California’s Hazardous Waste Control Law for our hazardous waste facility in Rancho Cordova, California for the years 2011 through 2017. DTSC referred the matter to the California Attorney General’s office. On March 3, 2016, we entered into a tolling agreement with the Attorney General’s office, which was subsequently extended while the parties negotiated a resolution of the matter. On October 26, 2017, DTSC filed a complaint in California Superior Court in Sacramento County for civil penalties and injunctive relief for alleged violations of California's Hazardous Waste Control Law. On October 15, 2018, the parties entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Order and Final Judgment on Consent, which was entered by the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County, on October 19, 2018. The associated penalty was paid by the Company in November 2018. Tabasco, Mexico. In late 2016, the National Agency for Industrial Security and the Protection of the Environment for the Hydrocarbon Sector in Mexico (“ASEA”) conducted a permit compliance inspection at a hazardous waste treatment facility acquired by one of our subsidiaries in Dos Bocas, Tabasco, Mexico. ASEA subsequently claimed that the soil treatment process described in the facility’s treatment permit had not been followed properly and issued an order imposing a fine and directing that the facility be closed and that alleged contamination on a certain portion of the facility be remediated. Our subsidiary has engaged a firm of environmental technicians to assess the contamination described in the ASEA order and to conduct a broader environmental assessment of the facility. The preliminary estimate of the remediation costs necessary to address the ASEA order was $2.0 million. Our review and assessment of the overall facility is ongoing. In November 2017, ASEA rescinded the prior order imposing the fine. After reassessing the evidence and arguments presented, ASEA issued a new resolution on March 9, 2018, containing a lower, revised fine and including remedial obligations. In March 2018, the Company submitted a proposal for remedial measures. On April 26, 2018, the Company appealed the fines in the most recent order. In December 2018, ASEA approved the Company’s remedial plan for the facility, which will involve an amendment to the facility’s permit to allow for on-site, in-situ remediation of the one treatment cell subject to ASEA’s original order. In June 2018, the Company instituted both civil and criminal legal proceedings in Mexico against the company from which it acquired the relevant facility, seeking to hold the seller liable for any remediation as well as lost profits and damages. The defendants named in the civil complaint filed their answers in September 2018. The Company has accrued its estimate of the probable loss and costs necessary to comply with the ASEA order and remediate the treatment cell, which are not material.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2018

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 19 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We operate in highly regulated industries and respond to regulatory inquiries or investigations from time to time that may be initiated for a variety of reasons. At any given time, the Company has matters at various stages of resolution with the applicable government authorities. We are also routinely involved in actual or threatened legal actions, including those involving alleged personal injuries and commercial, employment, environmental, tax, and other issues. The outcomes of these matters are not within the Company’s complete control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, claimants seek damages, as well as other relief, including injunctive relief, that could require significant expenditures or result in lost revenue.

In accordance with applicable accounting standards, the Company establishes an accrued liability for loss contingencies related to legal and regulatory matters when the loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. If the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a loss is not probable or a probable loss is not reasonably estimable, no liability is recorded. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. These accruals represent management’s best estimate of probable losses and, in such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the amounts accrued. Estimates of probable losses resulting from litigation and regulatory proceedings are difficult to predict. Legal and regulatory matters inherently involve significant uncertainties based on, among other factors, the jurisdiction and stage of the proceedings, developments in the applicable facts or law, and the unpredictability of the ultimate determination of the merits of any claim, any defenses the Company may assert against that claim and the amount of any damages that may be awarded. The Company’s accrued liabilities for loss contingencies related to legal and regulatory matters may change in the future as a result of new developments, including, but not limited to, the occurrence of new legal matters, changes in the law or regulatory environment, adverse or favorable rulings, newly discovered facts relevant to the matter, or changes in the strategy for the matter. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Contract Class Action Lawsuits. Beginning on March 12, 2013, we were served with several class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted, among other things, that we had imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaints sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief. These related actions were ultimately transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the “MDL Action”).

On February 16, 2017, the Court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Court certified a class of “[a]ll persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003 through the date of trial resided in the United States (except Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as ‘Small Quantity’ or ‘SQ’ customer, and were charged and paid more than their contractually-agreed price for Stericycle’s medical waste disposal goods and services pursuant to Stericycle’s automated price increase policy. Governmental entities whose claims were asserted in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. shall be excluded from the class.”

The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached an agreement in principle for settlement in July 2017, which was subsequently documented in a definitive settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) on October 17, 2017. The Settlement provided a global resolution of all cases and claims against the Company in the MDL Action. It also provided that the Company would establish a common fund of $295.0 million from which would be paid all compensation to members of the settlement class, attorneys’ fees to class counsel, incentive awards to the named class representatives and all costs of notice and administration. It also provided that our existing contracts with customers would remain in force, while we would also establish as part of the Settlement guidelines for future price increases and provide customers additional transparency regarding such increases. Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The Settlement provided that, upon final approval by the Court following a fairness hearing, it would fully and finally resolve all claims against the Company alleged in the MDL Action.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement following a hearing on October 26, 2017. The fairness hearing was held on March 8, 2018. The Court granted approval of the Proposed MDL Settlement that same day. The Court entered final judgment on May 8, 2018. No appeal was filed, and the Proposed MDL Settlement became finally effective on June 7, 2018 (the “Final Settlement”). The Company funded the Final Settlement on July 6, 2018.

Certain class members who have opted out of the Final Settlement have filed lawsuits against the Company, and the Company will defend and resolve those actions. The Company has accrued its estimate of the probable loss for these collective matters, which is not material.

Securities Class Action Lawsuit. On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to sue for themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of our publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in our public offering of depositary shares, each representing a 1/10th interest in a share of our mandatory convertible preferred stock, on or around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the Company, our directors and certain of our current and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering. The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose those alleged practices in public filings and other statements issued during the proposed class period beginning February 7, 2013 and ending April 28, 2016.

On August 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July 28, 2016, inclusive. On October 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Amended Complaint adding the Company as a named defendant in plaintiff’s claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act, which had previously been asserted only against the Underwriters and certain officers and directors.

On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead Counsel. On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints for a class period from February 7, 2013 through September 18, 2016. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 1, 2017. On May 19, 2017, plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss and on June 19, 2017, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion.

On March 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed a further Amended Complaint, alleging additional corrective disclosures and extending the purported class period through February 21, 2018. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on May 25, 2018. The Motion was fully briefed on July 13, 2018, and awaited a ruling by the Court.

The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached an agreement in principle for settlement in December 2018 (the “Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement”).

As we disclosed in a current report on Form 8-K filed on December 20, 2018, the terms of the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement provide that the Company will establish a common fund of $45 million, from which will be paid all compensation to members of the settlement class, attorneys’ fees to class counsel, incentive awards to the named class representatives and all costs of notice and administration. The large majority of the $45 million common fund established pursuant to the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement will be paid by the Company’s insurers. In the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement, we admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever. We entered into the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement in order to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation.

On February 14, 2019, the Company executed a definitive written settlement agreement (the “Settlement”), which incorporated the terms of the agreement in principle announced in December 2018. The Settlement incorporated the terms of the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement, described above, and proposes a global resolution of all cases and claims against the Company in the Securities Class Action. Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The Settlement provided that, upon final approval by the Court following a fairness hearing, it would fully and finally resolve all claims against the Company alleged in the Securities Class Action.

On February 25, 2019, plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action filed Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for an Order Preliminarily Approving Class Settlement and Authorizing Dissemination of Notice of Settlement (the “Preliminary Approval Motion”). The Preliminary Approval Motion asks the Court to preliminarily approve the Settlement, to approve the manner and content of the notice to be given to potential class members, and to set a schedule for, among other things, deadlines for potential class members to file claims, object to the Settlement, or seek exclusion from the Settlement class. The Preliminary Approval Motion is pending before the Court.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits. On September 1, 2016, a purported stockholder filed a putative derivative action complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against certain officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders by causing the Company to allegedly overcharge certain customers in breach of those customers’ contracts, otherwise provide unsatisfactory customer service and injure customer relationships, and make materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies between February 7, 2013 and the present.

On March 1, 2017, another purported stockholder filed a putative derivative action complaint containing substantially similar allegations in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against certain officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as nominal defendant. The Company notes, among other things, that, in addition to failing to make the required demand on the board of directors, both of these filings are in violation of the Company’s Bylaws, which require any such actions to be brought in a court in Delaware.

On June 29, 2017, the Court entered an agreed order consolidating the two putative derivative actions for all purposes under the caption Kausal Shah v. Charles A. Alutto, et al. On July 11, 2017, the Court entered a further agreed order appointing lead counsel for plaintiffs and staying the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the securities class action discussed above. Pursuant to the agreed order, defendants reserved all potential defenses to both actions, should the stay be lifted. On February 14, 2019, the Court entered an Agreed Order to Lift Stay and Set Briefing Schedule, under which the Court lifted the stay of litigation, granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint on or before April 15, 2019, and set a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss by the Company.

On March 26, 2018, Alvin Janklow v. Charles A. Alutto, et al., was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Delaware. On April 16, 2018, John Brennan v. Charles A. Alutto, et al., was filed in the same court. On May 16, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating Brennan and Janklow. On April 18, 2018, the company filed a motion to stay the combined Janklow and Brennan cases, and the Court granted the Company’s motion. On January 11, 2019, the parties stipulated to, and the Court entered an order, lifting the stay to allow the Company to file a motion to dismiss and setting a briefing schedule on that motion. On January 25, 2019, Stericycle filed its motion to dismiss; on February 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion; the Company has until March 12, 2019 to file a reply.

On April 12, 2018, Rick Siu v. Mark C. Miller, et al., was filed in Delaware Chancery Court. By agreement of the parties, the Siu case was stayed by order of the Court on May 24, 2018, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the securities class action discussed above. The parties subsequently engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter. On February 25, 2019, the parties executed and filed with the Court a written Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release (the “Siu Settlement”). Under the Siu Settlement, the Defendants will implement and/or maintain certain corporate governance changes for a period of four years following approval of the settlement. In addition, the Company will receive payment from applicable insurance in the amount of $7.5 million, less any amounts ordered by the Court to be paid for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses or as a service award to Plaintiff.

Neither the Company nor the Defendants have admitted any fault or wrongdoing whatsoever in connection with the Siu Settlement, but have entered into the Siu Settlement in order to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The Siu Settlement remains subject to Court approval at a final hearing, which the Court has not yet scheduled.

On October 18, 2016, the Company received a letter from an attorney purporting to represent a current stockholder of the Company demanding, pursuant to Del. Ct. Ch. R. 23.1, that the Company’s Board of Directors take action to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and directors of the Company. The factual allegations set forth in the letter were similar to those asserted in the Securities Class Action Lawsuit and the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits.

The Company’s Board of Directors constituted a Special Demand Review Committee to investigate the claims made in the demand letter and the Committee retained independent counsel to assist with the investigation. At the conclusion of its investigation, the Committee’s counsel advised the stockholder that the Board had completed its investigation and determined not to pursue legal action.

On July 30, 2018, the purported stockholder on whose behalf the demand letter was sent filed a stockholder derivative action, Damon Turney v. Mark C. Miller, et al., in the Federal District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the demand was wrongfully refused. The company moved to dismiss the action on December 5, 2018. The motion was fully briefed on February 8, 2019, and is currently pending before the Court.

On January 22, 2019, the Company received a letter from an attorney purporting to represent another current stockholder of the Company setting forth allegations and demands substantially similar to those previously presented in the October 18, 2016 demand letter, the Securities Class Action Lawsuit and the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits. The Company’s Board of Directors referred this letter to the Special Demand Review Committee and its independent counsel for consideration. After the Committee had considered the January 22, 2019 letter in light of its prior investigation, the Committee’s counsel advised the stockholder that the Board had determined not to pursue legal action.

We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these lawsuits, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable and (ii) in our judgment, the factual and legal allegations asserted by plaintiffs are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other proceedings with circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates.

We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against each of the derivative lawsuits.

TCPA Lawsuit. On June 3, 2016, a plaintiff filed a putative class action, captioned Ibrahim v. Stericycle, Inc., No. 16-cv-4294 (N.D. Ill.), against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary, Stericycle Communication Solutions, Inc., under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), asserting that the defendants called plaintiff and others in violation of that statute. Plaintiff challenges our use of pre-recorded messages that urge the owners of recalled products to return or obtain repairs for those products.

Plaintiff seeks certification of two nationwide classes. One class includes people who received one or more cellular telephone calls from Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice message relating to a product recall, where the called party was not the same individual who, according to Stericycle’s records, was the intended recipient of the call. The second class includes people who received one or more cellular telephone calls from Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice message relating to a product recall after such person had communicated to Stericycle that Stericycle did not have consent to make any such calls to their cellular telephone number.

On July 28, 2016, we answered the complaint, denying the material allegations and raising certain affirmative defenses. Among the asserted defenses is the “emergency” exception to the TCPA, which exempts calls made to promote public health and safety. On December 19, 2016, before any substantial discovery in the case, we filed a motion for summary judgment primarily on the basis of the “emergency” exception. On February 1, 2017, plaintiff responded to our motion by requesting additional discovery. The court permitted plaintiff to obtain some but not all of the requested discovery, and we have provided additional documents in response to that order.

On April 5, 2017, plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint which would add a claim under the Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act (which does not include an “emergency” exception) and certain additional allegations. We filed an opposition to this motion on April 28, 2017, contending that the proposed amendments are futile and that we are entitled to summary judgment. On June 27, 2017, the court permitted plaintiff to file the amended complaint. We answered plaintiff’s amended complaint, denying liability, and in light of the amended complaint, withdrew our motion for summary judgment without prejudice. The parties conducted discovery, which closed on May 15, 2018.

On September 25, 2018, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the case with prejudice, and the Court dismissed the case with prejudice on October 23, 2018.

FCPA Investigation. On June 12, 2017, the SEC issued a subpoena to the Company, requesting documents and information relating to the Company’s compliance with the FCPA or other foreign or domestic anti-corruption laws with respect to certain of the Company’s operations in Latin America. In addition, the DOJ has notified the Company that it is investigating this matter in parallel with the SEC. The Company is cooperating with these agencies. The Company is also conducting an internal investigation of these and other matters, including outside of Latin America, under the oversight of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors and with the assistance of outside counsel, and this investigation has found evidence of improper conduct.

We have not accrued any amounts in respect of this matter, as we cannot estimate any reasonably possible loss or any range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because, based on what we know now, in our judgment, the factual and legal issues presented in this matter are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates.

Environmental Matters. Our Environmental Solutions business is regulated by federal, state and local laws enacted to regulate the discharge of materials into the environment, the generation, transportation and disposal of waste, and the cleanup of contaminated soil and groundwater and protection of the environment. Because of the highly regulated nature of this business, we frequently become a party to legal or administrative proceedings involving various governmental authorities and other interested parties. The issues involved in these proceedings generally relate to alleged violations of existing permits and licenses or alleged responsibility under federal or state Superfund laws to remediate contamination at properties owned either by us or by other parties to which either we or the prior owners of certain of its facilities shipped wastes. From time to time, we may be subject to fines or penalties in regulatory proceedings relating primarily to waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities.

North Salt Lake, Utah. We have continued to toll the statute of limitations with the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah (the “USAO”) relating to an investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) into past Clean Air Act emissions and permit requirements, as previously alleged in the notice of violation (the “NOV”) issued by the State of Utah Division of Air Quality (the “DAQ”). The NOV resulted in our December 2014 settlement with the DAQ, as previously disclosed.

The government indicated that the matter will be resolved civilly, not criminally, and the parties have reached agreement in principle, to be documented in the form of a civil consent decree, under which the company will undertake a Supplemental Environmental Project and pay a civil penalty under the Clean Air Act.

The Company has accrued the total amount of the agreement in principle.

Rancho Cordova, California. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) alleged violations of California’s Hazardous Waste Control Law for our hazardous waste facility in Rancho Cordova, California for the years 2011 through 2017. DTSC referred the matter to the California Attorney General’s office. On March 3, 2016, we entered into a tolling agreement with the Attorney General’s office, which was subsequently extended while the parties negotiated a resolution of the matter.

On October 26, 2017, DTSC filed a complaint in California Superior Court in Sacramento County for civil penalties and injunctive relief for alleged violations of California's Hazardous Waste Control Law. On October 15, 2018, the parties entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Order and Final Judgment on Consent, which was entered by the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County, on October 19, 2018. The associated penalty was paid by the Company in November 2018.

Tabasco, Mexico. In late 2016, the National Agency for Industrial Security and the Protection of the Environment for the Hydrocarbon Sector in Mexico (“ASEA”) conducted a permit compliance inspection at a hazardous waste treatment facility acquired by one of our subsidiaries in Dos Bocas, Tabasco, Mexico. ASEA subsequently claimed that the soil treatment process described in the facility’s treatment permit had not been followed properly and issued an order imposing a fine and directing that the facility be closed and that alleged contamination on a certain portion of the facility be remediated. Our subsidiary has engaged a firm of environmental technicians to assess the contamination described in the ASEA order and to conduct a broader environmental assessment of the facility. The preliminary estimate of the remediation costs necessary to address the ASEA order was $2.0 million. Our review and assessment of the overall facility is ongoing. In November 2017, ASEA rescinded the prior order imposing the fine. After reassessing the evidence and arguments presented, ASEA issued a new resolution on March 9, 2018, containing a lower, revised fine and including remedial obligations. In March 2018, the Company submitted a proposal for remedial measures. On April 26, 2018, the Company appealed the fines in the most recent order.

In December 2018, ASEA approved the Company’s remedial plan for the facility, which will involve an amendment to the facility’s permit to allow for on-site, in-situ remediation of the one treatment cell subject to ASEA’s original order.

In June 2018, the Company instituted both civil and criminal legal proceedings in Mexico against the company from which it acquired the relevant facility, seeking to hold the seller liable for any remediation as well as lost profits and damages. The defendants named in the civil complaint filed their answers in September 2018.

The Company has accrued its estimate of the probable loss and costs necessary to comply with the ASEA order and remediate the treatment cell, which are not material.