As we’ve posted in the past, public companies must generally disclose environmental legal proceedings in various reports to the SEC, and whether or not those proceedings have a material effect on the company’s financial position. Companies may also disclose business risks related to current or pending environmental regulation.
Below is the juiciest stuff we could find that was filed with EDGAR this week.
* * *
- SMITH & WESSON HOLDING CORP | Form 10-Q | 12/8/2011
We are required to remediate hazardous waste at our facilities. Currently, we own designated sites in Springfield, Massachusetts and are subject to two release areas, which are the focus of remediation projects as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (“MCP”). The MCP provides a structured environment for the voluntary remediation of regulated releases. We may be required to remove hazardous waste or remediate the alleged effects of hazardous substances on the environment associated with past disposal practices at sites not owned by us. We have received notice that we are a potentially responsible party from the Environmental Protection Agency and/or individual states under CERCLA or a state equivalent at one site.
- WAL MART STORES INC | Form 10-Q | 12/8/2011
Hazardous Materials Investigations: On November 8, 2005, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, seeking documents and information relating to the Company’s receipt, transportation, handling, identification, recycling, treatment, storage and disposal of certain merchandise that constitutes hazardous materials or hazardous waste. The Company has been informed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California that it is a target of a criminal investigation into potential violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), the Clean Water Act and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Statute. This U.S. Attorney’s Office contends, among other things, that the use of Company trucks to transport certain returned merchandise from the Company’s stores to its return centers is prohibited by RCRA because those materials may be considered hazardous waste. The government alleges that, to comply with RCRA, the Company must ship from the store certain materials as “hazardous waste” directly to a certified disposal facility using a certified hazardous waste carrier. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of California and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency subsequently joined in this investigation. The Company contends that the practice of transporting returned merchandise to its return centers for subsequent disposition, including disposal by certified facilities, is compliant with applicable laws and regulations. While management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, management does not believe the outcome will have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.
- GENESCO INC | Form 10-Q | 12/8/2011
In July 2009, the Company agreed to a Consent Order with the EPA requiring the Company to perform certain remediation actions, operations, maintenance and monitoring at the site. In September 2009, a Consent Judgment embodying the Consent Order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The Village of Garden City, New York, has asserted that the Company is liable for the costs associated with enhanced treatment required by the impact of the groundwater plume from the site on two public water supply wells, including historical costs ranging from approximately $1.8 million to in excess of $2.5 million, and future operation and maintenance costs which the Village estimates at $126,400 annually while the enhanced treatment continues. On December 14, 2007, the Village filed a complaint against the Company and the owner of the property under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) as well as a number of state law theories in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking an injunction requiring the defendants to remediate contamination from the site and to establish their liability for future costs that may be incurred in connection with it, which the complaint alleges could exceed $41 million over a 70-year period. The Company has not verified the estimates of either historic or future costs asserted by the Village, but believes that an estimate of future costs based on a 70-year remediation period is unreasonable given the expected remedial period reflected in the EPA’s Record of Decision. On May 23, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Village’s complaint on grounds including applicable statutes of limitation and preemption of certain claims by the NYSDEC’s and the EPA’s diligent prosecution of remediation. On January 27, 2009, the Court granted the motion to dismiss all counts of the plaintiff’s complaint except for the CERCLA claim and a state law claim for indemnity for costs incurred after November 27, 2000. On September 23, 2009, on a motion for reconsideration by the Village, the Court reinstated the claims for injunctive relief under RCRA and for equitable relief under certain of the state law theories. The Company intends to continue to defend the action.
The Green Mien 