Waste Management - 10-Q quarterly report FY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ     Noo

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or anon-acceleratedfiler. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” inRule 12b-2of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer þ     Accelerated filero     Non-accelerated filer o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined inRule 12b-2of the Act).  Yes o     No þ

 

The number of shares of Common Stock, $0.01 par value, of the registrant outstanding at April 25, 2007 was 517,429,902 (excluding treasury shares of 112,852,559).

 

 

 

See notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

 

See notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

 

 

See notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

 

See notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

 

The financial statements presented in this report represent the consolidation of Waste Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation, our wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries and certain variable interest entities for which we have determined that we are the primary beneficiary. Waste Management, Inc. is a holding company and all operations are conducted by subsidiaries. When the terms “the Company,” “we,” “us” or “our” are used in this document, those terms refer to Waste Management, Inc., its consolidated subsidiaries and consolidated variable interest entities. When we use the term “WMI,” we are referring only to the parent holding company.

 

WMI was incorporated in Oklahoma in 1987 under the name “USA Waste Services, Inc.” and was reincorporated as a Delaware company in 1995. In a 1998 merger, the Illinois-based waste services company formerly known as Waste Management, Inc. became a wholly-owned subsidiary of WMI and changed its name to Waste Management Holdings, Inc. (“WM Holdings”). At the same time, our parent holding company changed its name from USA Waste Services to Waste Management, Inc. Like WMI, WM Holdings is a holding company and all operations are conducted by subsidiaries. For more detail on the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of WMI, WM Holdings and their subsidiaries, see Note 13.

 

We manage and evaluate our principal operations through six operating Groups, of which four are organized by geographic area and two are organized by function. The geographic Groups include our Eastern, Midwest, Southern and Western Groups, and the two functional Groups are our Wheelabrator Group, which provideswaste-to-energyservices, and our Recycling Group. We also provide additional waste management services that are not managed through our six Groups, which are presented in this report as “Other.”

 

The Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 are unaudited. In the opinion of management, these financial statements include all adjustments, which, unless otherwise disclosed, are of a normal recurring nature, necessary for a fair presentation of the financial position, results of operations, and cash flows for the periods presented. The results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results for the entire year. The financial statements presented herein should be read in connection with the financial statements included in our Annual Report onForm 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2006.

 

In preparing our financial statements, we make numerous estimates and assumptions that affect the accounting for and recognition and disclosure of assets, liabilities, stockholders’ equity, revenues and expenses. We must make these estimates and assumptions because certain information that we use is dependent on future events, cannot be calculated with a high degree of precision from data available or simply cannot be readily calculated based on generally accepted methodologies. In some cases, these estimates are particularly difficult to determine and we must exercise significant judgment. In preparing our financial statements, the most difficult, subjective and complex estimates and the assumptions that deal with the greatest amount of uncertainty relate to our accounting for landfills, environmental remediation liabilities, asset impairments, and self-insurance reserves and recoveries. Actual results could differ materially from the estimates and assumptions that we use in the preparation of our financial statements.

 

Accounting Change — Effective January 1, 2007, we adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes (an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109) (“FIN 48”). FIN 48 prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for financial statement recognition and measurement of tax positions taken or expected to be taken in tax returns. In addition, the interpretation provides guidance on the de-recognition, classification and disclosure of tax positions, as well as the accounting for related interest and penalties.

 

As a result of the implementation of FIN 48, on January 1, 2007, we recognized, as a cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, a $121 million increase in our liability for unrecognized tax benefits, a $36 million increase in our deferred tax assets and an $85 million reduction to our beginning retained earnings. These impacts are predominantly due to our application of FIN 48 to tax positions for which the Company had concluded audits

 

with the relevant taxing authority, but the statutes of limitations have not expired. Accordingly, our historical results of operations have included reductions to our provision for income taxes associated with the resolution of tax audit matters for which we have now re-established liabilities by adjusting our retained earnings. The statutes of limitations for these matters generally expire before the end of 2007, at which time we will be required to de-recognize the associated liabilities and deferred tax assets and record a reduction to our provision for income taxes in our Statement of Operations. In addition, during the first quarter of 2007, we reached a tax audit settlement, which in accordance with the provisions of FIN 48 will not be recognized in our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations until the applicable statutes of limitations expire in 2008 and 2009. Had we not been required to adopt FIN 48, the tax benefit associated with this settlement would have been reflected as a reduction to our “Provision for income taxes,” increasing our “Net income” for the three months ended March 31, 2007 by $16 million, or $0.03 per diluted share.

 

The Company has reviewed Proposed FASB Staff PositionNo. FIN 48-a,Definition of Settlement in FASB Interpretation No. 48, and determined that the issuance of a final FASB Staff Position (“FSP”) without significant changes from the current draft would materially change the impact of our implementation of FIN 48. Existing transition guidance from the FASB indicates that a final FSP would be effective January 1, 2007. If the FSP is ultimately issued as proposed, applying the FSP as of January 1, 2007 would result in an increase in our January 1, 2007 retained earnings of less than $5 million rather than the $85 million reduction to our beginning retained earnings recognized upon our initial implementation of FIN 48. In addition, we expect that we would be required to adjust our results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2007 to reflect the impact of the tax audit settlement reached during the current quarter, which was summarized above. We are currently evaluating the impact of these revisions on our 2007 financial reporting processes and expect that we will either file an amendedForm 10-Qfor the three months ended March 31, 2007 or restate our results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2007 in future periodic filings should the application of the FSP become effective.

 

Refer to Note 5 for additional information about our unrecognized tax benefits.

 

Reclassification of Cash Flow Information — Our 2006 Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows, as reported in the 2006 Annual Report onForm 10-K,included the effect of a change in classification of cash flows to properly exclude accrued capital spending from our reported capital expenditures and changes in accounts payable and accrued liabilities. Because this change was incorporated into our cash flow reporting processes for the first time in the fourth quarter of 2006, we will make reclassifications to our 2006 Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows to be included within our 2007 Quarterly Reports onForm 10-Qto conform with our current approach.

 

Reclassification of Segment Information — In the first quarter of 2007, we realigned our Eastern, Midwest and Western Group organizations to facilitate improved business execution. We moved certain market areas in the Eastern and Midwest Groups to the Midwest and Western Groups, respectively. We have reflected the impact of this realignment for all periods presented to provide financial information that consistently reflects our current approach to managing our operations. Refer to Note 11.

 

Liabilities for landfill and environmental remediation costs are presented in the table below (in millions):

 

 

The changes to landfill and environmental remediation liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2006 and the three months ended March 31, 2007 are reflected in the table below (in millions):

 

 

At several of our landfills, we provide financial assurance by depositing cash into restricted trust funds or escrow accounts for purposes of settling closure, post-closure and environmental remediation obligations. The fair value of these escrow accounts and trust funds was $223 million at March 31, 2007, and is primarily included as long-term “Other assets” in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. Balances maintained in these trust funds and escrow accounts will fluctuate based on (i) changes in statutory requirements; (ii) future deposits made to comply with contractual arrangements; (iii) the ongoing use of funds for qualifying closure, post-closure and environmental remediation activities; (iv) acquisitions or divestitures of landfills; and (v) changes in the fair value of the financial instruments held in the trust funds or escrow accounts.

 

The primary components of current “Other assets” as of March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006 were as follows:

 

Assetsheld-for-sale — As of March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006 our current “Other assets” included $173 million and $250 million, respectively, of operations and property held for sale.Held-for-saleassets are recorded at the lower of their carrying amount or their fair value less the estimated cost to sell. The decrease in our assetsheld-for-saleduring the current quarter is primarily due to the divestiture of operations in our Southern and Eastern Groups. Refer to Note 12 for additional information. In April 2007, we divested a substantial portion of our operations classified asheld-for-saleas of March 31, 2007. Refer to Note 15 for additional information.

 

Our quarterly assessment ofheld-for-saleoperations includes an analysis to determine if they qualify for discontinued operations accounting. Discontinued operations is not expected to be material to our results of operations or cash flows due to the current integration and anticipated continuing involvement of these businesses with our remaining operations.

 

Short-term investments available for use — We invest in auction rate securities and variable rate demand notes, which are debt instruments with long-term scheduled maturities and periodic interest rate reset dates. The interest rate reset mechanism for these instruments results in a periodic marketing of the underlying securities through an auction process. Due to the liquidity provided by the interest rate reset mechanism and the short-term nature of our investment in these securities, they have been classified as current assets in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, $46 million and $184 million,

 

respectively, of investments in auction rates securities and variable rate demand notes have been included as a component of current “Other assets.” Gross purchases and sales of these investments are presented within “Cash flows from investing activities” in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

 

The following table summarizes the major components of debt at each balance sheet date (in millions):

 

 

The significant changes in our debt balances from December 31, 2006 are related to the following:

 

 

Our revolving credit facility and certain other financing agreements contain financial covenants. The most restrictive of these financial covenants are contained in our revolving credit facility. Our revolving credit facility and senior notes also contain certain restrictions intended to monitor our level of indebtedness, types of investments and net worth. We monitor our compliance with these restrictions, but do not believe that they significantly impact our ability to enter into investing or financing arrangements typical for our business. As of March 31, 2007, we were in compliance with the covenants and restrictions under all of our debt agreements.

 

The Company is subject to income tax in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Current tax obligations associated with our provision for income taxes are reflected in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as a component of “Accrued liabilities,” and the deferred tax obligations are reflected in “Deferred income taxes.” As discussed in Note 1, we adopted FIN 48 effective January 1, 2007. As a result of the implementation of

 

FIN 48, we recognized, as a cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, a $121 million increase in our tax-related liabilities for unrecognized tax benefits, a $36 million increase in our deferred tax assets and an $85 million reduction to our beginning retained earnings. These impacts are predominantly due to our application of FIN 48 to tax positions for which the Company had concluded audits with the relevant taxing authority, but the statutes of limitations have not expired, which resulted in the reinstatement of liabilities that had been previously reversed to income.

 

Upon adoption, our income tax liabilities included a total of approximately $184 million for unrecognized tax benefits, excluding accrued interest liabilities, which are discussed below. These liabilities are primarily included as a component of long-term “Other liabilities” in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet because the Company generally does not anticipate that settlement of the liabilities will require payment of cash within the next twelve months. There was not a significant change in our liabilities for unrecognized tax benefits during the three months ended March 31, 2007. All of our unrecognized tax benefits, if recognized in future periods, would impact the Company’s effective tax rate.

 

To the extent interest and penalties would be assessed by taxing authorities on any underpayment of income tax, such amounts have been accrued and classified as a component of income tax expense in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. This accounting policy election is a continuation of the Company’s historical policy and will continue to be consistently applied in the future. As of January 1, 2007, we have accrued interest liabilities of $34 million related to unrecognized tax benefits, which are also primarily included as a component of long-term “Other liabilities.” We do not have any accrued liabilities for penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits.

 

The Company is currently under federal audit by the Internal Revenue Service for the tax years 2006 and 2007, as well as by several state and local jurisdictions dating back to 1998. In addition, several of the Company’s subsidiaries are open to examination in Canada dating back to 2002. We anticipate that approximately $100 million of unrecognized tax benefits, including accrued interest, and $7 million of related deferred tax assets may be reversed within the next twelve months. This reversal is predominantly due to the expiration of the statutes of limitations for unrecognized tax benefits recorded upon the implementation of FIN 48 as described above and the settlement of a state audit.

 

The difference between federal income taxes computed at the federal statutory rate and reported income taxes for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 is primarily due to the offsetting effects of the favorable impact of non-conventional fuel tax credits and the unfavorable impact of state and local income taxes. We evaluate our effective tax rate at each interim period and adjust it accordingly as facts and circumstances warrant.

 

Non-conventional fuel tax credits — The favorable impact of non-conventional fuel tax credits on our effective tax rate is derived from methane gas projects at our landfills and our investments in two coal-based, synthetic fuel production facilities (the “Facilities”). The fuel generated from our landfills and the Facilities qualifies for tax credits through 2007 pursuant to Section 45K of the Internal Revenue Code. Our recorded taxes for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 include benefits of $6 million and $2 million, respectively, from Section 45K tax credits generated by our landfillgas-to-energyprojects and $23 million and $7 million, respectively, from Section 45K tax credits generated by our investments in the Facilities.

 

Section 45K tax credits are phased out if the price of crude oil exceeds an annual average price threshold determined by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Our effective tax rate for the first quarter of 2007 reflects our current expectations for the partial phase-out of Section 45K tax credits generated during 2007. We have developed our current expectations for the phase-out of 30% of Section 45K credits using market information for current and forward-looking oil prices as of March 31, 2007. Accordingly, our current estimated effective tax rate could be materially different than our actual 2007 effective tax rate if our expectations for oil prices for the year are inconsistent with actual results.

 

As of March 31, 2006, we had estimated that 61% of Section 45K tax credits generated during 2006 would be phased out. However, our estimate of the 2006 phase-out was revised quarterly and, at year-end, was estimated to be

 

approximately 36%. On April 4, 2007, the IRS established the final phase-out of Section 45K credits generated during 2006 at approximately 33%. The impacts of this revision in estimate were included in our “Equity in net losses of unconsolidated entities” and our “Provision for income taxes” for the three months ended March 31, 2007.

 

Our minority ownership interests in the Facilities result in the recognition of our pro-rata share of the Facilities’ losses, the amortization of our investments and additional expense associated with other estimated obligations all being recorded as “Equity in net losses of unconsolidated entities” within our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The equity losses and associated tax benefits would not have been incurred if we had not acquired the minority ownership interest in the Facilities. If the tax credits generated by the Facilities were no longer allowable under Section 45K of the Internal Revenue Code, we could cease making payments in the period that determination is made and not incur these losses in future periods. As discussed above, our effective tax rates for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 include the effect of a partial phase-out of Section 45K credits generated during 2007 and 2006. Our “Equity in net losses of unconsolidated entities” for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 also reflect the impact of a partial phase-out of Section 45K credits on our contractual obligations to fund the Facilities’ losses. Although we currently project that we will not be able to recognize 30% of the tax credits generated during 2007, we are required to fund 100% of our pro-rata portion of the Facilities’ losses and production costs for 2007 operations. Amounts paid to the Facilities’ for which we do not ultimately realize a tax benefit are refundable to us, subject to certain limitations.

 

The following table summarizes the impact of our investments in the Facilities on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (in millions):

 

 

Tax audit settlements — The settlement of tax audits during the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 resulted in reductions in our provision for income taxes of $1 million and $6 million, respectively. The impact of the audit settlements did not significantly affect our estimated effective tax rate for either period.

 

 

Comprehensive income represents all changes in our equity except for changes resulting from investments by, and distributions to, stockholders. Comprehensive income was as follows (in millions):

 

 

The components of accumulated other comprehensive income were as follows (in millions):

 

 

The following reconciles the number of shares outstanding at March 31 of each year to the number of weighted average basic shares outstanding and the number of weighted average diluted shares outstanding for the purpose of calculating basic and diluted earnings per share. The table also provides the number of shares of common stock

 

potentially issuable at the end of each period and the number of potentially issuable shares excluded from the diluted earnings per share computation for each period (shares in millions):

 

 

In October 2004, our Board of Directors approved a capital allocation program that provided for up to $1.2 billion of combined stock repurchases and dividend payments for each of 2005, 2006 and 2007. In June 2006, our Board of Directors increased the amount of capital available for share repurchases in 2006 by $350 million. In March 2007, our Board of Directors approved up to $600 million of additional share repurchases for 2007, increasing the maximum amount of capital to be allocated to our share repurchases and dividend payments in 2007 to $1.8 billion. Aggregate dividend payments and share repurchases under the capital allocation program were $637 million and $508 million during the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.

 

The following is a summary of dividends declared and paid in each period (in millions, except per share amounts):

 

 

 

 

 

All future dividend declarations are at the discretion of the Board of Directors, and depend on various factors, including our net earnings, financial condition, cash required for future business plans and other factors the Board may deem relevant.

 

The following is a summary of activity under our stock repurchase programs for each period presented:

 

 

 

 

During the three months ended March 31, 2006, we also repurchased 2.8 million shares of our common stock for $96 million through open market transactions. Approximately $12 million of our first quarter 2006 share repurchases was paid in April 2006.

 

Future share repurchases will be made within the limits approved by our Board of Directors at the discretion of management, and will depend on factors similar to those considered by the Board in making dividend declarations.

 

Financial instruments — We have obtained letters of credit, performance bonds and insurance policies and have established trust funds and issued financial guarantees to support tax-exempt bonds, contracts, performance of landfill closure and post-closure requirements, environmental remediation and other obligations.

 

Historically, our revolving credit facilities have been used to obtain letters of credit to support our bonding and financial assurance needs. We also have letter of credit and term loan agreements and a letter of credit facility that were established to provide us with additional sources of capacity from which we may obtain letters of credit. We obtain surety bonds and insurance policies from two entities in which we have a non-controlling financial interest. We also obtain insurance from a wholly-owned insurance company, the sole business of which is to issue policies for the parent holding company and its other subsidiaries, to secure such performance obligations. In those instances where our use of captive insurance is not allowed, we generally have available alternative bonding mechanisms.

 

Because virtually no claims have been made against the financial instruments we use to support our obligations, and considering our current financial position, management does not expect that any claims against or draws on these instruments would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. We have not experienced any unmanageable difficulty in obtaining the required financial assurance instruments for our current operations. In an ongoing effort to mitigate risks of future cost increases and reductions in available capacity, we continue to evaluate various options to access cost-effective sources of financial assurance.

 

Insurance — We carry insurance coverage for protection of our assets and operations from certain risks including automobile liability, general liability, real and personal property, workers’ compensation, directors’ and

 

officers’ liability, pollution legal liability and other coverages we believe are customary to the industry. Our exposure to loss for insurance claims is generally limited to the per incident deductible under the related insurance policy. Our exposure, however, could increase if our insurers were unable to meet their commitments on a timely basis.

 

We have retained a portion of the risks related to our automobile, general liability and workers’ compensation insurance programs. For our self-insured retentions, the exposure for unpaid claims and associated expenses, including incurred but not reported losses, is based on an actuarial valuation and internal estimates. The estimated accruals for these liabilities could be affected if future occurrences or loss development significantly differ from utilized assumptions.

 

For the 14 months ended January 1, 2000, we insured certain risks, including auto, general liability and workers’ compensation, with Reliance National Insurance Company, whose parent filed for bankruptcy in June 2001. In October 2001, the parent and certain of its subsidiaries, including Reliance National Insurance Company, were placed in liquidation. We believe that because of various state insurance guarantee funds and probable recoveries from the liquidation, currently estimated to be $19 million, it is unlikely that events relating to Reliance will have a material adverse impact on our financial statements.

 

We do not expect the impact of any known casualty, property, environmental or other contingency to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

 

Guarantees — In the ordinary course of our business, WMI and WM Holdings enter into guarantee agreements associated with their subsidiaries’ operations. These include both the debt obligations, including tax-exempt bonds, of the subsidiaries and the subsidiaries’ lease, financial and general operating obligations. Additionally, WMI and WM Holdings have each guaranteed all of the senior debt of the other entity. WM Holdings has guaranteed WMI’s revolving credit facility and letter of credit and term loan agreements, as well as all of its senior notes and WMI has guaranteed all of WM Holdings’ senior notes. No additional liabilities have been recorded for these intercompany guarantees because all of the underlying obligations are reflected in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

 

We also have guaranteed the obligations of third parties. These guarantee agreements include guarantees of unconsolidated entities’ financial obligations maturing through 2020 for maximum future payments of $20 million; agreements spanning the life of certain landfills guaranteeing the market value of homeowners’ properties adjacent to landfills; and the guarantee of interest rate swap obligations of the funding entity in connection with our letter of credit facility. We currently do not believe it is reasonably likely that we would be called on to perform under these guarantees and do not believe that any of the obligations would have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

 

We also provide indemnification to third parties in the normal course of business, most notably in connection with the sales of businesses or assets. These indemnifications generally provide that we will be responsible for liabilities associated with the occurrence of specified events. Other than certain identified items that are currently recorded as obligations, we do not believe that it is possible to determine the contingent obligations associated with these indemnities. Additionally, under certain of our acquisition agreements, we have provided for additional consideration to be paid to the sellers if established financial targets are achieved post-closing. The costs associated with any additional consideration requirements are accounted for as incurred.

 

Environmental matters — We are subject to an array of laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. Under current laws and regulations, we may have liabilities for environmental damage caused by operations, or for damage caused by conditions that existed before we acquired a site. Such liabilities include potentially responsible party (“PRP”) investigations, settlements, certain legal and consultant fees, as well as costs directly associated with site investigation and clean up, such as materials and incremental internal costs directly related to the remedy.

 

 

Estimating our degree of responsibility for remediation of a particular site is inherently difficult and determining the method and ultimate cost of remediation requires that a number of assumptions be made. Our ultimate responsibility may differ materially from current estimates. It is possible that technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies, the inability to identify other PRPs, the inability of other PRPs to contribute to the settlements of such liabilities, or other factors could require us to record additional liabilities that could be material. There can sometimes be a range of reasonable estimates of the costs associated with the likely remedy of a site. In these cases, we use the amount within the range that constitutes our best estimate. If no amount within the range appears to be a better estimate than any other, we use the amounts that are the low ends of such ranges in accordance with SFAS No. 5,Accounting for Contingencies, and its interpretations. If we used the high ends of such ranges, our aggregate potential liability would be approximately $190 million higher than the $273 million recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as of March 31, 2007. Our ongoing review of our remediation liabilities could result in revisions that could cause upward or downward adjustments to income from operations. These adjustments could also be material in any given period.

 

As of March 31, 2007, we had been notified that we are a PRP in connection with 75 locations listed on the EPA’s National Priorities List (“NPL”). Of the 75 sites at which claims have been made against us, 16 are sites we own. Each of the NPL sites we own were initially developed by others as landfill disposal facilities. At each of these facilities, we are working in conjunction with the government to characterize or remediate identified site problems, and we have either agreed with other legally liable parties on an arrangement for sharing the costs of remediation or are pursuing resolution of an allocation formula. We generally expect to receive any amounts due from these parties at, or near, the time that we make the remedial expenditures. The 59 NPL sites at which claims have been made against us and that we do not own are at different procedural stages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, which is known as CERCLA or Superfund.

 

The majority of these proceedings involve allegations that certain of our subsidiaries (or their predecessors) transported hazardous substances to the sites, often prior to our acquisition of these subsidiaries. CERCLA generally provides for liability for those parties owning, operating, transporting to or disposing at the sites. Proceedings arising under Superfund typically involve numerous waste generators and other waste transportation and disposal companies and seek to allocate or recover costs associated with site investigation and remediation, which costs could be substantial and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. At some of the sites at which we’ve been identified as a PRP, our liability is well defined as a consequence of a governmental decision and an agreement among liable parties as to the share each will pay for implementing that remedy. At other sites, where no remedy has been selected or the liable parties have been unable to agree on an appropriate allocation, our future costs are uncertain. Any of these matters potentially could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

 

Litigation — In December 1999, an individual brought an action against WMI, five former officers of WM Holdings, and WM Holdings’ former independent auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, in Illinois state court on behalf of a proposed class of individuals who purchased WM Holdings common stock before November 3, 1994, and who held that stock through February 24, 1998. The action is for alleged acts of common law fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. This case has remained in the pleadings stage for the last several years due to numerous motions and rulings by the court related to the viability of these claims. The defendants had removed the case to federal court in Illinois, but in 2006 agreed to the matter being held in state court as originally filed. The Company believes that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in other cases require the Illinois trial court to rule this matter cannot proceed as a class action. Only limited discovery has occurred and the defendants continue to defend themselves vigorously. The extent of possible damages, if any, in this action cannot yet be determined.

 

In April 2002, a former participant in WM Holdings’ ERISA plans and another individual filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C. against WMI, WM Holdings and others, attempting to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA plan participants based on allegations related to both the events alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the securities class action against WM Holdings that was settled in 1998 and the securities class action against us that

 

was settled in November 2001. Subsequently, the issues related to the latter class action have been dropped as to WMI, its officers and directors. The case is ongoing with respect to WM Holdings and others, and WM Holdings intends to defend itself vigorously.

 

From time to time, we pay fines or penalties in environmental proceedings relating primarily to waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. As of March 31, 2007, there were four proceedings involving our subsidiaries where we reasonably believe that the sanctions could exceed $100,000. The matters involve allegations that subsidiaries (i) failed to comply with air permit, air emission limit and leachate storage requirements at an operating landfill; (ii) violated a number of state solid waste regulations and permit conditions and federal air regulations at an operating landfill; (iii) failed to meet reporting requirements under federal air regulations at an operating landfill; and (iv) failed to perform state emissions tests for diesel-powered vehicles. We do not believe that the fines or other penalties in any of these matters will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

 

From time to time, we also are named as defendants in personal injury and property damage lawsuits, including purported class actions, on the basis of having owned, operated or transported waste to a disposal facility that is alleged to have contaminated the environment or, in certain cases, on the basis of having conducted environmental remediation activities at sites. Some of the lawsuits may seek to have us pay the costs of monitoring and health care examinations of allegedly affected sites and persons for a substantial period of time even where no actual damage is proven. While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these lawsuits, the ultimate resolution is often substantially uncertain due to the difficulty of determining the cause, extent and impact of alleged contamination (which may have occurred over a long period of time), the potential for successive groups of complainants to emerge, the diversity of the individual plaintiffs’ circumstances, and the potential contribution or indemnification obligations of co-defendants or other third parties, among other factors. Accordingly, it is possible such matters could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements.

 

As a large company with operations across the United States and Canada, we are subject to various proceedings, lawsuits, disputes and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. Many of these actions raise complex factual and legal issues and are subject to uncertainties. Actions filed against us include commercial, customer, and employment related claims, including purported class action lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege that we violated federal and state wage and hour and other laws. The plaintiffs in some actions seek unspecified damages or injunctive relief, or both. These actions are in various procedural stages, and some are covered in part by insurance. We currently do not believe that any such actions will ultimately have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements.

 

Under Delaware law, corporations are allowed to indemnify their officers, directors and employees against claims arising from their actions in such capacities if the individuals acted in good faith and in a manner they believed to be in, or not opposed to, the best interests of the corporation. Further, corporations are allowed to advance expenses to the individuals in such matters, contingent upon the receipt of an undertaking by the individuals to repay all expenses if it is ultimately determined that they did not act in good faith and in a manner they believed to be in, or not opposed to, the best interests of the corporation. WMI’s charter and bylaws currently require indemnification of and advancement of expenses to its officers and directors if these standards have been met and previously required indemnification of and advancement of expenses to all employees if the standards were met. Additionally, WMI has entered into separate indemnification agreements with each of the members of its Board of Directors as well as its Chief Executive Officer, its President and its Chief Financial Officer. The charter and bylaw documents of certain of WMI’s subsidiaries, including WM Holdings, also include similar indemnification provisions, and some subsidiaries, including WM Holdings, entered into separate indemnification agreements with their officers and directors prior to our acquisition of them that provide for even greater rights and protections for the individuals than WMI’s charter and bylaws.

 

The Company’s obligations to indemnify and advance expenses are determined based on the governing documents in effect and the status of the individual at the time the actions giving rise to the claim occurred. As a

 

result, we may have obligations to individuals after they leave the Company and also may have obligations to individuals that are or were employees of the Company, but who were neither an officer or a director, even though the current documents only require indemnification and advancement to officers and directors. The Company may incur substantial expenses in connection with the fulfilment of its advancement of costs and indemnification obligations in connection with current actions involving former officers of the Company or its subsidiaries or other actions or proceedings that may be brought against its former or current officers, directors and employees in the future.

 

Tax matters — We are currently under audit by the IRS and from time to time are audited by other taxing authorities. We fully cooperate with all audits, but defend our positions vigorously. Our audits are in various stages of completion. We have concluded several audits in the last two years. In the first quarter of 2007, we concluded the IRS audit for the years 2004 and 2005. We are currently in the initial planning phase of an IRS audit for the years 2006 and 2007. We expect this audit to be completed within the next 18 months. Audits associated with state and local jurisdictions date back to 1998 and examinations associated with Canada date back to 2002. To provide for certain potential tax exposures, we maintain a liability for unrecognized tax benefits, the balance of which management believes is adequate. For additional information related to our liability for unrecognized tax benefits refer to Note 5. Results of audit assessments by taxing authorities could have a material effect on our quarterly or annual cash flows as audits are completed, although we do not believe that current tax audit matters will have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.

 

As discussed in Note 4, we have approximately $2.7 billion of tax-exempt financings as of March 31, 2007. Tax-exempt financings are structured pursuant to certain terms and conditions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), which exempts from taxation the interest income earned by the bondholders in the transactions. The requirements of the Code can be complex, and failure to comply with these requirements could cause certain past interest payments made on the bonds to be taxable and could cause either outstanding principal amounts on the bonds to be accelerated or future interest payments on the bonds to be taxable. Some of the Company’s tax-exempt financings have been, or currently are, the subject of examinations by the IRS to determine whether the financings meet the requirements of the Code and applicable regulations. It is possible that an adverse determination by the IRS could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s cash flows and results of operations.

 

Unclaimed property audit — We are currently undergoing unclaimed property audits in three states. The property subject to review in this audit process generally includes unclaimed wages, vendor payments and customer refunds. State escheat laws generally require entities to report and remit abandoned and unclaimed property. Failure to timely report and remit the property can result in assessments that include substantial interest and penalties, in addition to the payment of the escheat liability itself. During 2006, we submitted unclaimed property filings with all of the states except those three where we are under audit, and, as a result of our findings, we determined that we had estimated unrecorded obligations associated with unclaimed property for escheatable items for various periods between 1980 and 2004. Our “Selling, general and administrative” expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2006, included a charge of approximately $19 million required to record our estimated obligations for unclaimed property. During the three months ended March 31, 2006, we also recognized $1 million of estimated interest obligations associated with our findings. During the first quarter of 2007, we reached a settlement with the state where we had the most significant exposure related to our ongoing unclaimed property audits and recorded an additional charge of $7 million, including $4 million of “Selling, general and administrative” expenses and $3 million of “Interest expense”. We have determined that the impact of these adjustments is not material to current or prior periods’ results of operations. Although we cannot currently estimate the potential financial impacts that the two remaining audit findings may have, we do not expect any resulting obligations to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or cash flows.

 

 

In the first quarter of 2007, certain operations and functions were restructured resulting in the recognition of a charge of approximately $9 million. Approximately $6 million of our restructuring costs was incurred by our Corporate organization, $2 million was incurred by our Midwest Group and $1 million was incurred by our Western Group. These charges included approximately $8 million for employee severance and benefit costs and approximately $1 million related to operating lease agreements.

 

Through March 31, 2007, we had paid less than $1 million of the employee severance and benefit costs incurred as a result of this restructuring. The length of time we are obligated to make severance payments varies, with the longest obligation continuing through the first quarter of 2009.

 

We manage and evaluate our operations primarily through our Eastern, Midwest, Southern, Western, Wheelabrator and Recycling Groups. These six Groups are presented below as our reportable segments. Our segments provide integrated waste management services consisting of collection, disposal (solid waste and hazardous waste landfills), transfer,waste-to-energyfacilities and independent power production plants that are managed by Wheelabrator, recycling services and other services to commercial, industrial, municipal and residential customers throughout the United States and in Puerto Rico and Canada. The operations not managed through our six operating Groups are presented herein as “Other.”

 

Effective January 1, 2007, we realigned our Eastern, Midwest and Western Group organizations to facilitate improved business execution. We reassigned responsibility for the management of certain Eastern Group markets areas representing $799 million in assets, including $163 million in goodwill, to the Midwest Group; and we reassigned responsibility for the management of certain Midwest Group market areas representing $435 million in assets, including $231 million in goodwill, to the Western Group. The prior period segment information provided in the following table has been reclassified to reflect the impact of our market area realignments to provide financial information that consistently reflects our current approach to managing our operations.

 

Summarized financial information concerning our reportable segments for the three months ended March 31 is shown in the following tables (in millions):

 

 

 

 

 

 

The table below shows the total revenues contributed by our principal lines of business (in millions):

 

 

 

 

Income from divestitures — We recognized $9 million of net gains on divestitures during the first quarter of 2007. The majority of these net gains relate to divestitures of operations in our Southern and Eastern Groups. Total proceeds from divestitures completed during the three months ended March 31, 2007 were $49 million, all of which were received in cash.

 

During the first quarter of 2006, we recognized $2 million of net gains on divestitures, consisting primarily of a sale of assets and operations in our Western Group. Total proceeds from divestitures completed during the three months ended March 31, 2006 were $4 million, all of which were received in cash.

 

Asset impairments — During the first quarter of 2007, we recorded impairment charges of $10 million attributable to two landfills in our Southern Group. The impairments were necessary as a result of the re-evaluation of our business alternatives for one landfill and the expiration of a contract that we had expected would be renewed that had significantly contributed to volumes for the second landfill.

 

WM Holdings has fully and unconditionally guaranteed all of WMI’s senior indebtedness. WMI has fully and unconditionally guaranteed all of WM Holdings’ senior indebtedness. None of WMI’s other subsidiaries have guaranteed any of WMI’s or WM Holdings’ debt. As a result of these guarantee arrangements, we are required to present the following condensed consolidating financial information (in millions):