In millions
	March 31, 2020		December 31, 2019
Accrued liabilities	$	1.7	$	4.7
Other long-term liabilities		1.9		27.2
Total environmental liabilities	$	3.6	$	31.9

Environmental liabilities relate primarily to the Domestic Environmental Solutions business, which was sold on April 6, 2020. The Company reclassed $27.5 million of its environmental remediation liabilities to liabilities held-for-sale as of March 31, 2020. See Part I, Item I. Financial Statements; Note 3 - Restructuring, Divestitures, and Disposal Groups Held-For-Sale in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for further information.

The Company operates in highly regulated industries and responds 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. The Company is 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 and Opt Out Lawsuits. Beginning on March 12, 2013, the Company was served with several class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted, among other things, that the Company had imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its 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”).

The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached a settlement agreement, as previously disclosed, which settlement agreement obtained court approval on March 8, 2018 (the “Settlement”). 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.

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 and Opt Out Lawsuits. 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, which was subsequently amended. As amended, the complaint purported to assert claims on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and February 21, 2018, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in the Company’s public offering of depositary shares on or around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the Company, its directors and certain of its current and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering. The complaint purported 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 alleged, 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.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Before the court had ruled on the pending motion to dismiss, the parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached a settlement agreement as previously disclosed (the “Securities Class Action Settlement”). The court held a final fairness hearing on July 22, 2019, at which it granted final approval of the Settlement and took under advisement the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded to plaintiffs’ counsel from the settlement fund. 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.

Certain class members who have opted out of the Final Settlement have filed lawsuits against the Company. On March 6, 2020, the Company filed motions to dismiss these actions, which motions remain pending. The Company intends to defend these actions vigorously and resolve them as appropriate. The Company has not accrued any amounts in respect of these lawsuits, as it cannot estimate any reasonably possible loss or any range of reasonably possible losses that the Company may incur.

Government Investigations. 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 notified the Company that it was investigating this matter in parallel with the SEC. The Company is cooperating with these agencies and certain foreign authorities. 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.

As part of the FCPA investigation discussed above, the SEC has requested certain additional information from the Company. On July 29, 2019, the SEC issued a subpoena to the Company requesting documents relating to the Company’s pricing practices concerning small quantity customers, as alleged in the Contract Class Actions and in the Securities Class Action. The Company is cooperating with the SEC’s request.

The Company has not accrued any amounts in respect of this matter, as it cannot estimate any reasonably possible loss or any range of reasonably possible losses that the Company may incur. The Company is unable to make such an estimate because, based on what the Company knows now, in the Company’s judgment, the factual and legal issues presented in this matter are sufficiently unique that the Company is unable to identify other circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates.

Environmental and Regulatory Matters. The Company 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 its business, the Company frequently becomes 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 the Company or by other parties to which either the

Company or the prior owners of certain of its facilities shipped waste. From time to time, the Company may be subject to fines or penalties in regulatory proceedings relating primarily to waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. Effective April 6, 2020, the Company completed the divestiture of its Domestic Environmental Solutions business, including facilities in Tacoma, Washington and Rancho Cordova, California, to Harsco Corporation. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, the Company may be subject to certain indemnification claims for matters relating to those facilities.

North Salt Lake, Utah. The Company has 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 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 the Company’s December 2014 settlement with the DAQ, as previously disclosed.

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, which is not material.

Tabasco, Mexico. In late 2016, the National Agency for Industrial Security and the Protection of the Environment for the Hydrocarbon Sector in Mexico (the “ASEA”) conducted a permit compliance inspection at a hazardous waste treatment facility acquired by one of the Company’s subsidiaries in Dos Bocas, Tabasco, Mexico. The 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. The Company’s 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 Company’s review and assessment of the overall facility is ongoing. In November 2017, the ASEA rescinded the prior order imposing the fine. After reassessing the evidence and arguments presented, the 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, the 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 and evidence is being heard in this matter.

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.

Tacoma, Washington. On October 7, 2019, the State of Washington Department of Ecology (“Washington Ecology”) issued an administrative order alleging violations of Washington regulations and the facility

operating permit for our hazardous waste facility in Tacoma, Washington during 2018 and ordering compliance with Chapter 70.105 Revised Code of Washington, Hazardous Waste Management Act, Chapter 173-303 Washington Administrative Code, Dangerous Waste Regulations, and Dangerous Waste Management Facility Permit WAD020257945 effective March 22, 2012. The administrative order identified certain alleged violations and associated corrective actions for the Tacoma facility to take upon receipt of the administrative order. Washington Ecology also issued an associated Notice of Penalty, assessing a fine of $1.9 million.

On November 5, 2019, the Company appealed the fine to the state Pollution Control Hearings Board. A hearing on that appeal is scheduled to take place in November 2020. Washington Ecology has also notified the Company of additional alleged violations subsequent to those included in the Notice of Penalty described above. The Company has engaged in negotiations with Washington Ecology to resolve all of these matters. If they cannot be resolved through settlement, the Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations.

The Company has accrued its estimate of the probable loss for these collective matters, which is not material.

Rancho Cordova, California. On June 25 and 26, 2018, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) conducted a Compliance Enforcement Inspection of the Company’s Domestic Environmental Solutions facility in Rancho Cordova, California. On February 14, 2020, DTSC filed an action in the Superior Court for the State of California, Sacramento Division, alleging violations of California’s Hazardous Waste Control Law and the facility’s hazardous waste permit arising from the inspection. That action is ongoing.

Separately, on August 15, 2019, the Company received from DTSC a written Intent to Deny Hazardous Waste Facility Permit application for the Rancho Cordova facility. A public hearing was held on September 22, 2019, and the public comment period closed on October 25, 2019. The Company entered a written submission as part of that process. Next, DTSC will issue a final permit decision. If DTSC were to deny the permit renewal, the Company would have the right to file an administrative appeal.

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

DEA Investigation – Rancho Cordova, California and Indianapolis, Indiana. On February 11, 2020, the Company received an administrative subpoena from the DEA, which executed a search warrant at the Company’s Domestic Environmental Solutions facility at Rancho Cordova, California and an administrative inspection warrant at the Company’s facility in Indianapolis, Indiana for materials related to the Domestic Environmental Solutions business of shipping and destroying controlled substances. On that same day, agents from the DTSC executed a separate search warrant at the Rancho Cordova facility. The Company is cooperating fully with the DEA and DTSC in response to their investigations, including with the government’s activity at the Rancho Cordova and Indianapolis facilities.

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

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations and actions.