COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]


NOTE 9 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

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 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. Under the terms of the SQ Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the SQ Settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation.

Certain class members who have opted out of the SQ Settlement have filed lawsuits against the Company, and the Company is defending and intends to resolve those actions. The Company has made an accrual in respect of these collective matters consistent with its accrual policies described above, which is not material.

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 also conducted 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.

As previously disclosed, the Company has engaged in settlement discussions in connection with the foregoing government investigations. On April 20, 2022, the Company announced that it has settled these matters with the DOJ and the SEC. Under the Company's settlement with the DOJ, the Company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) with the DOJ, under which the DOJ agreed to defer criminal prosecution of the Company for a period of three years for charges of conspiring to violate the anti-bribery and books and records provisions of the FCPA. If the Company remains in compliance with the DPA during its three-year term, the deferred charge against the Company would be dismissed with prejudice. The Company agreed to pay $52.5 million in criminal fines to the DOJ, subject to offsetting up to $17.5 million of that amount based upon fines paid to Brazilian authorities (as described below). Under the Company’s settlement with the SEC, the Company entered into an administrative resolution with the SEC with respect to violations of the anti-bribery, books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA, and agreed to disgorge $22.2 million and pay pre-judgment interest of $6.0 million to the SEC. $4.2 million of the amount to be disgorged is subject to offset based upon amounts paid in

disgorgement to Brazilian authorities (as described below). In addition, under the settlements with the DOJ and with the SEC, the Company will engage an independent compliance monitor for two years and undertake compliance with self-reporting obligations for an additional year.

Also as announced on April 20, 2022, the Company reached a settlement agreement with the Brazilian Controladora-General da Uniao (CGU) and Advocacia-General da Uniao (Attorney General Office) in the amount of $23.1 million, $13.5 million of which will offset amounts that would otherwise be paid to the DOJ and the SEC.

Based on the foregoing settlements and as provided by U.S. GAAP, in addition to the $80.7 million previously accrued in 2021, the Company accrued an additional $9.6 million in the first half of 2022 for the FCPA Settlement. In the second and third quarters of 2022, the Company paid $81.0 million of the agreed settlement to the DOJ, the SEC and the Brazilian authorities.

The Company is also discussing potential settlement of a related investigation with an additional Brazilian authority. Because this negotiation is ongoing, the Company cannot predict with certainty its outcome, including whether a settlement will be reached, the amount of any potential monetary payments, or injunctive or other relief. In the event the Company negotiates a settlement with this Brazilian authority, certain monetary portions of the agreement with the DOJ may be offset by payments made thereto. At the present time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate nor provide any assurance regarding the amount of any potential loss in excess of the amount accrued relating to these matters.

In addition, the Company has been informed that the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York is conducting an investigation into compliance with the False Claims Act and other federal statutes in connection with the collection, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste by the Company’s former Domestic Environmental Solutions business unit. The Company has also been informed that the State of California Department of Justice is conducting an investigation related to the Company’s collection, transportation, and disposal of waste generated by government customers in California. The Company is cooperating with these investigations. The Company has made an accrual in respect of this matter consistent with its accrual policies described above, which is not material.

Environmental and Regulatory Matters. The Company is subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations. In the ordinary course of business, we are routinely involved in government enforcement proceedings, private lawsuits, and other matters alleging non-compliance by the Company with applicable law. The issues involved in these proceedings generally relate to alleged violations of existing permits or other requirements, or alleged liability due to our current operations, pre-existing conditions at the locations where we operate, and/or successor or predecessor liability associated with our portfolio optimization strategy. 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 the facility in Rancho Cordova, California, to Harsco Corporation. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, the Company may have liability under certain indemnification claims for matters relating to those Domestic Environmental Solutions facilities, including potentially with respect to the investigations by the Southern District of New York and California Department of Justice described above and the Rancho Cordova, California, and DEA Investigation matters discussed below.

Rancho Cordova, California, NOVs. On June 25 and 26, 2018, the California DTSC conducted a Compliance Enforcement Inspection of the Company’s former 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 County 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.

The Company has not accrued any amounts in respect of this matter 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 DTSC are sufficiently unique that it is unable to identify other proceedings with circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates.

Rancho Cordova, California, Permit Revocation. 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. Following legal

challenges, that DTSC action became final as of April 8, 2022, triggering an obligation to execute the closure plan set forth in the facility's permit. Consistent with its accrual policies described previously, the Company has made an accrual in the amount of its estimate of closure costs reasonably likely to be incurred and indemnified to Harsco under the Purchase Agreement, which is not material.

DEA Investigation. On February 11, 2020, the Company received an administrative subpoena from the DEA, which executed a search warrant at the Company’s former Domestic Environmental Solutions facility at Rancho Cordova, California and an administrative inspection warrant at the Company’s former facility in Indianapolis, Indiana for materials related to the former Domestic Environmental Solutions business of collecting, transporting, and destroying controlled substances from retail customers (the “ESOL Retail Controlled Substances Business”). On that same day, agents from the DTSC executed a separate search warrant at the Rancho Cordova facility. Since that time, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California (“USAO EDCA”) has been overseeing criminal and civil investigations of the ESOL Retail Controlled Substances Business. The USAO EDCA has informed the Company that it may have civil liability under the Controlled Substances Act related to the Domestic Environmental Solutions Retail Controlled Substances Business. The Company is cooperating with the civil and criminal investigations, which are ongoing.

The Company has not accrued any amounts in respect of these investigations and cannot estimate the 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.

European Retrovirus Investigations. In conjunction with Europol, governmental authorities of Spain, Portugal, and Romania have conducted coordinated inspections of a large number of medical waste management facilities, including Stericycle facilities, relating to the transportation, management and disposal of waste that may be infected with the COVID-19 virus, and related matters. The inspections have resulted in proceedings in Spain and Portugal. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these proceedings.

The Company has not accrued any amounts in respect of these investigations, as it cannot estimate the 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.