Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters

17.   Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters

CEO Succession Plan

On June 1, 2021, the Company announced that its Board has determined that it was in the best interests of the Company to implement a succession plan for the Chief Executive Officer position given that the Company’s Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, George C. Zoley, was 71 years old and has served with the Company for approximately forty years. The primary objectives of the Board in initiating a succession plan were to secure Mr. Zoley’s services on a long-term basis to ensure a proper senior management transition, and to retain a new Chief Executive Officer that would succeed Mr. Zoley in that role. This change will allow Mr. Zoley the ability to focus on planning of the Company’s future.

      On May 27, 2021, the Board terminated without cause Mr. Zoley’s existing employment agreement, effective as of June 30, 2021, and entered into a new five-year employment agreement with Mr. Zoley as Executive Chairman, in a modified role and at reduced compensation effective July 1, 2021. The new employment agreement with Mr. Zoley will secure Mr. Zoley’s continuous employment, enabling the Company to continue to benefit from Mr. Zoley’s extensive knowledge and experience, and providing for an orderly transition of senior management.

In connection with Mr. Zoley’s termination, the Company and Mr. Zoley entered into a Separation and General Release Agreement as of May 27, 2021 (the “Separation Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Separation Agreement, Mr. Zoley continued to serve as Chief Executive Officer of the Company through June 30, 2021 (the “Separation Date”) and received all accrued wages through the Separation Date. Additionally, pursuant to the terms of Mr. Zoley’s prior employment agreement, Mr. Zoley received payments in the amount of $5,851,555, less any applicable taxes and withholdings, which represents the sum of two (2) years of Mr. Zoley’s base annualized salary and two (2) times Mr. Zoley’s target bonus at the time under GEO’s Senior Management Performance Award Plan. Mr. Zoley’s restricted stock subject to performance-based vesting at the Separation Date shall vest at such time as the performance goals are met if Mr. Zoley is still providing

services to GEO under the Executive Chairman Agreement described below. Mr. Zoley also received $579,600 for all accrued dividends on his unvested shares of restricted stock. Lastly, Mr. Zoley is entitled to receive certain fringe benefits for a ten (10) year period as set forth in the Separation Agreement, including payment of health insurance premiums under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”) for eighteen (18) months and reimbursement of the cost of health insurance coverage for eight and a half (8¹⁄₂) years following the first eighteen (18) months, life insurance, the use of an executive automobile, and personal use of the Company leased aircraft for thirty (30) hours per year. In the event of Mr. Zoley’s death within such ten (10) year period, the Company will continue to provide the fringe benefits to Mr. Zoley’s covered dependents, and, if applicable to Mr. Zoley’s estate.

In order to transition the role of Chief Executive Officer to a successor in an orderly manner, the Board determined it was in the best interests of GEO to create a new officer position for the role of Executive Chairman and appoint Mr. Zoley as Executive Chairman, effective as of July 1, 2021. As a result, the Company and Mr. Zoley on May 27, 2021 entered into an Executive Chairman Employment Agreement effective as of July 1, 2021 (the “Executive Chairman Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Chairman Agreement, Mr. Zoley will serve as Executive Chairman assisting the new Chief Executive Officer in his transition, among other duties and responsibilities, and report directly to the Board of Directors for a term of five years ending on June 30, 2026 and subject to automatic renewals for one-year periods unless either the Company or Mr. Zoley gives written notice at least 1 year prior to the expiration of the term. Under the terms of the Executive Chairman Agreement, Mr. Zoley will be paid an annual base salary of $1.0 million and will be eligible to receive target annual performance awards equal to 100% of base salary in accordance with the terms of any plan governing senior management performance awards. Mr. Zoley will also be entitled to receive an annual equity incentive award with a grant date fair value equal to 100% of base salary and subject to a time-based vesting schedule of one (1) year from the date of grant. Additionally, the Company will credit Mr. Zoley’s account balance under the Amended and Restated Executive Retirement Agreement on an annual basis in an amount equal to 100% of his base salary. Lastly, Mr. Zoley is entitled to participate in all benefits and perquisites available to executive officers of GEO.

The Executive Chairman Agreement provides that upon the termination of the Executive Chairman Agreement by the Company without cause, by Mr. Zoley for good reason or upon Mr. Zoley’s death or disability, Mr. Zoley will be entitled to receive a termination payment equal to two times the sum of his annual base salary and the target bonus. In addition, the unvested portion of any equity award will fully vest and the Company will provide Mr. Zoley and any of his covered dependents and heirs with the executive benefits beginning on the date that they are no longer entitled to the fringe benefits (i.e. health insurance coverage, use of an executive automobile, etc.) under the Separation Agreement until the ten (10) year anniversary of the date of termination of the Executive Chairman Agreement.

Upon the termination of the Executive Chairman Agreement by GEO for cause or by Mr. Zoley without good reason, Mr. Zoley will be entitled to only the amount of compensation that is due through the effective date of the termination, including the retirement benefit due to him under his executive retirement agreement. The Executive Chairman Agreement contains restrictive covenants, including a non-competition covenant that runs through the three (3) year period following the termination of the executive’s employment, and customary confidentiality and work product provisions.

Appointment of Jose Gordo as Successor Chief Executive Officer

In connection with his appointment, Mr. Gordo and the Company entered into an Executive Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) on May 27, 2021 to provide that Mr. Gordo will be employed by the Company for a three-year term beginning July 1, 2021. Unless the Employment Agreement is sooner terminated, or not renewed, it will automatically extend upon the end of its initial term for a rolling three-year term. Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement, Mr. Gordo will serve as Chief Executive Officer and report directly to the Executive Chairman. Either Mr. Gordo or the Company may terminate Mr. Gordo’s employment under the Employment Agreement for any reason upon not less than thirty (30) days written notice.

Under the terms of the Employment Agreement, Mr. Gordo will be paid an annual base salary of $900,000, subject to the review and potential increase within the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee. Mr. Gordo will also be entitled to receive a target annual performance award of 85% of Mr. Gordo’s base salary and will also be entitled to participate in the Company’s stock incentive plan and upon the effective date, the Company granted Mr. Gordo an award of 50,000 performance-shares that will vest ratably over a three-year period.

The Employment Agreement provides that upon the termination of the agreement by Mr. Gordo for good reason, by the Company without cause or upon the death or disability of Mr. Gordo, he will be entitled to receive a termination payment equal to two (2) times the sum of his annual base salary plus target bonus for the fiscal year in which his employment is terminated or, if greater, the target bonus for the fiscal year immediately prior to such termination. The Company will also continue to provide Mr. Gordo and any covered dependents with the Executive Benefits as defined in the Employment Agreement for a period of five (5) years after the date of termination. In the event of Mr. Gordo’s death within such five (5) year period, the Company will continue to provide the Executive Benefits to Mr. Gordo’s covered dependents, and, if applicable to Mr. Gordo’s estate. In addition, the Employment Agreement provides that upon such termination, GEO will transfer all of its interest in any automobile used by the executive pursuant to its employee automobile policy and pay the balance of any outstanding loans or leases on such automobile so that the executive owns the automobile outright. In the event such automobile is leased, the Employment Agreement provides that GEO will pay the residual cost of the lease. In the event the Company does not pay the termination payment by the due date, then any unpaid amount shall bear interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum, compounded monthly,

until paid. Lastly, all of the outstanding and unvested stock options and restricted stock granted to Mr. Gordo prior to termination will fully vest immediately upon termination; provided, however that any restricted stock that is subject to performance-based vesting shall only vest when and to the extent the Compensation Committee certifies that the performance goals are actually met.

Upon the termination of the Employment Agreement by GEO for cause or by Mr. Gordo without good reason, Mr. Gordo will be entitled to only the amount of compensation that is due through the effective date of the termination. The Employment Agreement includes a non-competition covenant that runs through the three-year period following the termination of the executive’s employment, and customary confidentiality and work product provisions.

Amended and Restated Executive Retirement Agreement

The Company and Mr. Zoley entered into on May 27, 2021, and effective as of July 1, 2021, an Amended and Restated Executive Retirement Agreement (the “Amended and Restated Executive Retirement Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Amended and Restated Executive Retirement Agreement, upon the date that Mr. Zoley ceases to provide services to the Company, the Company will pay to Mr. Zoley an amount equal to $3,600,000 which shall be paid in cash (the “Grandfathered Payment”). The payment shall be credited with interest at a rate of 5% compounded quarterly (the “Grandfathered Earnings Account”). Additionally, at the end of each calendar year provided that Mr. Zoley is still providing services to the Company pursuant to the Executive Chairman Agreement, the Company will credit an amount equal to $1,000,000 at the end of each calendar year (the “Employment Contributions Account”). The Employment Contributions Account will be credited with interest at the rate of 5% compounded quarterly. Upon the date that Mr. Zoley ceases to provide services to the Company, the Company will pay Mr. Zoley in one lump sum cash payment each of the Grandfathered Payment, the Grandfathered Earnings Account and the Employment Contributions Account subject to the six-month delay provided in the Amended and Restated Executive Retirement Agreement.

Collective Bargaining Agreements

The Company had approximately 42% of its workforce covered by collective bargaining agreements at December 31, 2021. Collective bargaining agreements with 14% of employees are set to expire in less than one year.

Contract Developments

     On November 1, 2021, we transitioned the operation of our company-owned 600-bed Guadalupe County Correctional Facility to the New Mexico Corrections Department and began a new lease agreement with the State of New Mexico, with a two-year base period and successive two-year renewals through October 2041.

     In August 2021 and October 2021, we entered into 5-year contract renewals for our company-owned Broward Transitional Center and our company-owned Aurora ICE Processing Center, respectively.

     Effective October 1, 2021, we entered into a six-month contract extension with the USMS for the 770-bed Western Region Detention Facility in California. The contract with the USMS was operating under a two-year option period which was scheduled to end on September 30, 2021.

     On September 30, 2021, we announced that we entered into a new five-year contract with Clearfield County, Pennsylvania to utilize our company-owned 1876-bed Moshannon Valley Facility in Decatur Township, Pennsylvania. Clearfield County is responsible for detainees under a five-year contract with ICE and expects to use the Moshannon Valley Facility to address its capacity needs.

     In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, we received notice that the County intends to take over management of the managed-only George W. Hill Correctional Facility effective April 2022.

      On August 18, 2021, we were notified by the BOP that it has decided to not exercise the contract renewal option for our company-owned, 1,732-bed Big Springs and the company-owned 1,800-bed Flightline Correctional Facilities in Texas, when the contract base periods expire on November 30, 2022.

      On March 5, 2021, we were notified by the BOP that it decided to not exercise the contract renewal option for the company-owned, 1,940-bed Great Plains Correctional Facility in Oklahoma, when the contract base period expired on May 31, 2021.

      On March 15, 2021, we announced that the USMS decided to not exercise the contract renewal option for our company-owned, 222-bed Queens Detention Facility in New York, when the contract base period ended on March 31, 2021.

      On March 25, 2021, we were notified by the BOP that it decided to terminate the contract for the county-owned and managed, 1,800-bed Reeves County Detention Center I & II in Texas effective May 10, 2021, which was earlier than the contract base period was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2022.

     We were also not awarded the managed-only contracts for the Bay, Graceville and Moore Haven Correctional and Rehabilitation Facilities in Florida during the recent re-bid solicitation process by the State of Florida. We subsequently filed a protest challenging the award of the contracts, and as a result of the protest, we were able to retain the management contract for the Moore Haven Correctional and Rehabilitation Facility. Our contracts for the Bay and Graceville Correctional and Rehabilitation Facilities have been transitioned to a different operator.

Commitments

As of December 31, 2021, the Company had contractually required commitments for a number of projects using existing Company financing facilities. The Company’s management estimates that these existing contractually required capital projects will cost approximately $20.9 million, of which $8.3 million was spent through 2021. The Company estimates the remaining capital requirements related to these contractually required capital projects to be approximately $12.6 million. These projects are expected to be completed through 2022.

In addition to these current estimated capital requirements, the Company is currently in the process of bidding on, or evaluating potential bids for the design, construction and management of a number of new projects. In the event that the Company wins bids for these projects and decides to self-finance their construction, its capital requirements could materially increase.

Litigation, Claims and Assessments

On July 7, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its then Chief Executive Officer, George C. Zoley (“Mr. Zoley”), and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans (“Mr. Evans”), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On October 1, 2020, the court entered an unopposed order appointing lead plaintiffs, approving the selection of counsel, dismissing the initial complaint, and setting a deadline for the filing of an amended complaint. On November 18, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans––as well as J. David Donahue (“Mr. Donahue”), the Company’s former Senior Vice President and President of the U.S. Secure Services division, and Ann M. Schlarb (“Ms. Schlarb”), the Company’s Senior Vice President and President of the GEO Care division––made materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions related to GEO’s business––including quality of operations, corporate social responsibility, competitive strengths, pending litigation, business strategies, health and safety, sources of financing, dividend expectations, and COVID-19 procedures. The amended complaint was brought by lead plaintiffs James Michael DeLoach and Edward Oketola, individually and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities––other than the defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which the defendants have or had a controlling interest––who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during the alleged class period from November 7, 2018 to August 5, 2020, inclusive.  The amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleged that Messrs. Zoley, Evans, and Donahue and Ms. Schlarb violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  On December 18, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On September 23, 2021, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part, and denied it in part.  The court dismissed all claims against Messrs. Evans and Donahue, and Ms. Schlarb.  The court also dismissed all claims against GEO and Mr. Zoley other than claims related to GEO's disclosures about pending litigation and directed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in conformance with the court's order.  On October 4, 2021, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action second amended complaint.  The second amended complaint alleges that GEO and Mr. Zoley violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions related to pending litigation, and seeks relief on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons and entities––other than the defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which the defendants have or had a controlling interest––who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during the alleged class period from November 9, 2018 to August 5, 2020, inclusive.  The second amended complaint seeks damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper.  On October 18, 2021, GEO and Mr. Zoley filed a motion to dismiss and/or to strike, arguing that the second amended complaint failed to comply with the court's prior dismissal order and contains allegations beyond the disclosures and time period permitted by the court.  The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and remains pending.

On July 1, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed in Palm Beach County, Florida’s Circuit Court against the Company, as well as its then Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Zoley, its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Evans, Ms. Schlarb, its Senior Vice President and President of GEO Care, and Company directors Richard H. Glanton, Anne N. Foreman, Christopher C. Wheeler, Julie M. Wood, Guido van Hauwermeiren, Scott M. Kernan, Jose Gordo, and Duane Helkowski (collectively, “Defendants”).  The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the individual Defendants relating to purported healthcare and quality of care deficiencies, an allegedly inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, alleged forced labor by detainees, and alleged exposure to pending litigation, which purportedly led to damage to GEO.  On September 28, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to stay, or alternatively motion to dismiss the

complaint.  On January 7, 2022, the Court entered an Agreed Order on Stay, staying this action until the resolution of the motion to dismiss and/or to strike pending in the federal purported shareholder class action lawsuit described above.

On November 12, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, as well as its then Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Zoley, its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Evans, Ms. Schlarb, its Senior Vice President and President of GEO Care, David Venturella, its Senior Vice President, J. David Donahue, its former Senior Vice President, President, GEO Secure Services, and Company directors Richard H. Glanton, Anne N. Foreman, Christopher C. Wheeler, Julie M. Wood, Guido van Hauwermeiren, Scott M. Kernan, Jose Gordo, and Duane Helkowski (collectively, “Defendants”).   The complaint alleges that the individual Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint also alleges breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets against the individual Defendants relating to purported healthcare and quality of care deficiencies, an allegedly inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, alleged forced labor by detainees, and alleged exposure to pending litigation, which purportedly led to damage to GEO.  On January 14, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the action.  On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an Order Granting Joint Motion to Stay and Administratively Closing Case, staying this action pending the resolution of the federal purported shareholder class action lawsuit described above

           As previously reported and described in the Company's periodic reports, including most recently in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2021, former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”). The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched because of the level of payment the detainees received for work performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program that are at issue in the case are authorized by the Federal government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress. On July 6, 2015, the court found that detainees were not employees under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In February 2017, the court granted the plaintiff-class’ motion for class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three similar lawsuits have been filed - two in Washington and one in California. The first of the two Washington lawsuits was filed on September 9, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9, 2017. In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of California. All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective state’s minimum wage laws. However, the California lawsuit, like the Colorado suit, also includes claims that the Company violated the TVPA and California's equivalent state statute. The California court certified a nationwide class which would allow the plaintiffs to primarily seek injunctive relief or policy changes at a number of facilities if they are successful on the merits of their claims. On August 9, 2021, the California court conducted a hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Decertify Class, as well as Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Motion to Decertify Class was granted. The Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment are pending. On July 2, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Washington Attorney General’s Tacoma lawsuit based on the Company’s position that its legal defenses prevent the case from proceeding to trial. The federal court in Washington denied the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on August 6, 2019. However, on August 20, 2019, the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest, which asked the Washington court to revisit its prior denial of the Company's intergovernmental immunity defense in the case. While the Washington court ultimately elected not to dismiss the case at the time, its order importantly declared that the Company's intergovernmental immunity defense was legally viable, to be ultimately determined at trial. After putting the lawsuits on “standby” for most of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial court entered an order setting both suits for an estimated three-week trial beginning June 1, 2021. The court ordered a remote trial, but with the possibility of in-person proceedings. The order notes the Company’s exception to the remote trial setting. The Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the judge’s order setting a remote trial on April 8, 2021, requesting that the trial date be moved from June 1, 2021 to the earliest possible date after July 1, 2021, when the State of Washington plans to allow in-person trials to resume. On April 9, 2021, the Washington court denied the motion for reconsideration for an in-person trial, ruling that a “hybrid” trial, with some parts being conducted in-person with COVID-19 precautions, would begin on June 1, 2021. On June 1, 2021, the remote Zoom trial began. On June 17, 2021, the trial judge declared a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The in-person jury re-trial began on October 12, 2021. In October 2021, an unfavorable jury verdict and combined $23.2 million judgments were entered against the Company in the retrial of two cases, State of Washington v. GEO Group and Nwauzor et. al. v. GEO Group (the “lawsuits”), in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The trial court has waived the necessity to post a supersedeas bond for the combined judgments and has stayed enforcement of the verdict and judgments while GEO’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is pending.

        GEO strongly disagrees with the verdict and judgments in the retrial of the lawsuits. GEO intends to raise several issues on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, including the applicability of the state of Washington’s Minimum Wage Act to detainees who participate in the federally mandated Voluntary Work Program at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (the “Center”), and the affirmative defenses that GEO believes were wrongly dismissed in these cases. GEO looks forward to having those and other related issues heard on appeal based on GEO’s belief that the cases were wrongly decided. GEO intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself.

          The lawsuits were filed by the State of Washington Attorney General and a private class of detainee plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that Washington State minimum wage laws should be enforced with respect to detainees who volunteer to participate in a Voluntary Work Program administered by GEO at the Center as required by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under the terms of GEO’s contract. The Center houses persons in the custody of federal immigration authorities while their immigration status is being determined by the federal government.

In a similar lawsuit involving a Voluntary Work Program administered by CoreCivic at an ICE Processing Center in New Mexico, Ndambi et al. v. CoreCivic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of CoreCivic in March 2021. In a unanimous decision in that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a U.S. District Court ruling which dismissed the case and found that detainees who volunteer to participate in the Voluntary Work Program in immigration processing centers are not employees and are not owed wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico’s minimum wage law.

On December 30, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging California’s newly enacted law - Assembly Bill 32 (AB-32) - which bars the federal government from engaging the Company or any other government contractors to provide detention services for illegal immigrants. The Company’s claims, as described in the lawsuit, are grounded in authoritative legal doctrine that under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the federal government is free from regulation by any state. By prohibiting federal detention facilities in California, the suit argues AB-32 substantially interferes with the ability of USMS and ICE to carry out detention responsibilities for the federal government. Secondly, because AB-32 creates exceptions to the State of California when using the Company or any government contractors (to alleviate overcrowding), California’s statute unlawfully discriminates against the federal government. On December 31, 2019, GEO filed its motion for a preliminary injunction restraining California’s Governor and Attorney General from enforcing AB-32 against the Company’s detention facilities on behalf of USMS and ICE. On January 24, 2020, the United States filed a lawsuit challenging AB-32. The court heard motions for preliminary injunction from the Company and the United States on July 16, 2020.  The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing and indicated it would render an opinion sometime after the filing deadline of August 18, 2020. On July 20, 2020 the court consolidated both lawsuits. On October 8, 2020, the court issued an order granting, in part, and denying in part, the Company and the Untied States’ motions and California’s motion to dismiss. Among other findings, the court (1) dismissed the Company’s intergovernmental immunity claims as well as the United States’ preemption claims as applied to ICE facilities; (2) found that the Company and the United States were likely to succeed on the preemption claims as applied to U.S. Marshals’ facilities and enjoined enforcing AB-32 against those facilities; and (3) refused to enjoin California from enforcing AB-32 against ICE contracts with the Company and the United States. The Company and the United States appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on June 7, 2021. On October 5, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that AB-32 conflicted with federal law and could not stand.

On April 29, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the State of Washington’s newly enacted law – House Bill 1090 (EHB 1090) – that purports to prohibit the United States from using detention facilities operated by private contractors to house detainees in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  

The Company establishes accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, the results of these claims or proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these claims or proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company's accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. The Company does not accrue for anticipated legal fees and costs but expenses those items as incurred.

The nature of the Company's business also exposes it to various other third-party legal claims or litigation against the Company, including, but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement and/or mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by individuals in its care, medical malpractice claims, product liability claims, intellectual property infringement claims, claims relating to employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile liability claims, indemnification claims by its customers and other third parties, contractual claims and claims for personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with the Company's facilities, programs, electronic monitoring products, personnel or detainees, including damages arising from the escape of an individual in its care or from a disturbance or riot at a facility.

Other Assessment

A state non-income tax audit completed in 2016 included tax periods for which the state tax authority had a number of years ago processed a substantial tax refund. At the completion of the audit fieldwork, the Company received a notice of audit findings disallowing deductions that were previously claimed by the Company, approved by the state tax authority and served as the basis for the approved refund claim. In early January 2017, the Company received a formal Notice of Assessment of Taxes and Demand for Payment from the taxing authority disallowing the deductions. The total tax, penalty and interest assessed is approximately $19.8 million. The Company is appealing an administrative ruling and disagrees with the assessment and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend its position.  The Company has established a reserve based on its estimate of the most probable loss based on the facts and circumstances known to date and the advice of outside counsel in connection with this matter.

Ransomware Attack

On November 3, 2020, the Company began the process of notifying current and former employees and will provide additional notifications as required by applicable state and federal law regarding a ransomware attack that impacted a portion of GEO’s information technology systems and a limited amount of data that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information.  GEO promptly launched an investigation, engaged legal counsel and other incident response professionals, and notified its customers and law enforcement in response to the incident. GEO implemented a number of containment and remediation measures to address the incident, restore its systems and reinforce the security of its networks and information technology systems. The Company recovered its critical operating data and the incident has not had a significant impact on the Company's business operations or its ability to perform the services required under GEO's contracts with its government customers or the individuals entrusted to GEO's facilities and programs. At this time, the Company is not aware of any fraud or misuse of information as a result of the incident. Additionally, the Company’s financial reporting controls and procedures were not impacted and as a result, the incident did not affect the Company's ability to report accurate financial information in a timely manner. Based on the information currently known and obtained through the investigation of the incident, the Company does not believe the incident will have a material impact on its business, operations or financial results. The Company carries insurance, including cyber insurance, commensurate with its size and the nature of its operations.

Asset Divestiture

      On July 1, 2021, the Company completed a divestiture of its youth division, which was organized as a separate independent not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization (“Abraxas”). The divestiture included the sale of certain non-real estate assets in the Company’s Youth division for total consideration of $10 million which was in the form of an unsecured term note receivable (“Term Note”). The Term Note was to mature July 1, 2026 and bore annual interest at 5%. Principal payments of $250,000 were to be due annually each year starting July 1, 2022. After June 30, 2023, an additional payment would have been due equal to 50% of the excess cash flow (as defined in the Term Note) in excess of $1,000,000. The remaining balance was due on the maturity date. Additionally, the Company had provided a $4 million working capital line of credit (“Grid Note”) which was to mature on December 31, 2022 and bore daily interest at prime minus 1%. Each loan under the Grid Note was payable upon the earlier of (i) on demand, (ii) thirty days from the funding date, or (iii) the maturity date. There were no amounts drawn on the Grid Note during 2021. The sale resulted in the assignment of the Company’s youth services management contracts to Abraxas. The Company retained the ownership of the youth services real estate assets and have entered into lease agreements with Abraxas for the six company-owned youth facilities. As a result of the transaction, the Company recorded a loss on asset divestiture of approximately $4.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2021 inclusive of a working capital adjustment. On October 15, 2021, GEO signed a letter agreement with Abraxas and another unrelated not-for-profit entity for the settlement of the Term Note and termination of the Grid Note. In accordance with the letter agreement, Abraxas became affiliated with the other unrelated not-for-profit entity and paid GEO $8 million in full settlement of the Term Note on December 31, 2021.

CARES Act

On March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act, among other things, allows employers to defer the deposit and payment of the employer's share of Social Security taxes. The deferral applied to deposits and payments of the employer’s share of Social Security tax that would otherwise be required to be made during the period beginning on March 27, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020. The deferred amounts are due to be paid in two equal installments on December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2022. The Company paid the first installment in September 2021. The balance of the deferred payroll taxes is approximately $20 million as of December 31, 2021 which is included in Accrued Payroll and Related Taxes in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.