COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Letters of Credit and Surety Bonds
We use letters of credit and surety bonds to secure certain commitments related to insurance programs and for other purposes. As of July 31, 2018, these letters of credit and surety bonds totaled $155.5 million and $454.7 million, respectively. Included in the total amount of surety bonds is $2.7 million of bonds with an effective date starting after July 31, 2018.
Guarantees
In some instances, we offer clients guaranteed energy savings under certain energy savings contracts. At July 31, 2018, total guarantees were $176.0 million and extend through 2038. We accrue for the estimated cost of guarantees when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Historically, we have not incurred any material losses in connection with these guarantees.
In connection with an unconsolidated joint venture in which one of our subsidiaries has a 33% ownership interest, that subsidiary and the other joint venture partners have each jointly and severally guaranteed the obligations of the joint venture to perform under certain contracts extending through 2019. Annual revenues relating to the underlying contracts are approximately $35 million. Should the joint venture be unable to perform under these contracts, the joint venture partners would be jointly and severally liable for any losses incurred by the client due to the failure to perform.
Sales Tax Audits
We collect sales tax from clients and remit those collections to the applicable states. When clients fail to pay their invoices, including the amount of any sales tax that we paid on their behalf, in some cases we are entitled to seek a refund of that amount of sales tax from the applicable state. Sales tax laws and regulations enacted by the various states are subject to interpretation, and our compliance with such laws is routinely subject to audit and review by such states. Audit risk is concentrated in several states, and these states are conducting ongoing audits. The outcomes of ongoing and any future audits and changes in the states’ interpretation of the sales tax laws and regulations could materially adversely impact our results of operations.
Legal Matters
We are a party to a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings incident to the operation of our business, including those pertaining to labor and employment, contracts, personal injury, and other matters, some of which allege substantial monetary damages. Some of these actions may be brought as class actions on behalf of a class or purported class of employees.
At July 31, 2018, the total amount accrued for all probable litigation losses where a reasonable estimate of the loss could be made was $11.7 million, including $3.8 million accrued during the three months ended July 31, 2018 and an accrual of $3.8 million in connection with the Hussein case discussed below.
Litigation outcomes are difficult to predict and the estimation of probable losses requires the analysis of multiple possible outcomes that often depend on judgments about potential actions by third parties. If one or more matters are resolved in a particular period in an amount in excess of, or in a manner different than, what we anticipated, this could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
We do not accrue for contingent losses that, in our judgment, are considered to be reasonably possible but not probable. The estimation of reasonably possible losses also requires the analysis of multiple possible outcomes that often depend on judgments about potential actions by third parties. Our management currently estimates the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses for which a reasonable estimate of the loss can be made is between zero and $4 million. Factors underlying this estimated range of loss may change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate.
In some cases, although a loss is probable or reasonably possible, we cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential losses for probable matters or the range of losses for reasonably possible matters. Therefore, our accrual for probable losses and our estimated range of loss for reasonably possible losses do not represent our maximum possible exposure.
While the results of these lawsuits, claims, and proceedings cannot be predicted with any certainty, our management believes that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
Certain Legal Proceedings
Certain lawsuits to which we are a party are discussed below. In determining whether to include any particular lawsuit or other proceeding, we consider both quantitative and qualitative factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: the amount of damages and the nature of any other relief sought in the proceeding; if such damages and other relief are specified, our view of the merits of the claims; whether the action is or purports to be a class action, and our view of the likelihood that a class will be certified by the court; the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending; and the potential impact of the proceeding on our reputation.
The Consolidated Cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (the “Bucio case”)
The Bucio case is a class action pending in San Francisco Superior Court that alleges we failed to provide legally required meal periods and make additional premium payments for such meal periods, pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse janitors for travel expenses. There is also a claim for penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs appealed the class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District (the “Court of Appeal”), heard oral arguments on November 7, 2017. On December 11, 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying class certification and remanded the matter for certification of a meal period, travel expense reimbursement, and split shift class. The case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings on class certification, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial.
Hussein and Hirsi v. Air Serv Corporation filed on January 20, 2016, pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle (the “Hussein case”) and
Isse et al. v. Air Serv Corporation filed on February 7, 2017 in the Superior Court of Washington for King County (the “Isse” case)
The Hussein case was a certified class action involving a class of certain hourly Air Serv employees at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in SeaTac, Washington. The plaintiffs alleged that Air Serv violated a minimum wage requirement in an ordinance applicable to certain employers in the local city of SeaTac (the “Ordinance”). Plaintiffs sought retroactive wages, double damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees. This matter was removed to federal court. In a separate lawsuit brought by Filo Foods, LLC, Alaska Airlines, and several other employers at SeaTac airport, the King County Superior Court issued a decision that invalidated the Ordinance as it applied to workers at SeaTac airport. Subsequently, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision. On February 7, 2017, the Isse case was filed against Air Serv on behalf of 60 individual plaintiffs (who would otherwise be members of the Hussein class), who alleged failure to comply with both the minimum wage provision and the sick and safe time provision of the Ordinance. The Isse plaintiffs sought retroactive wages and sick benefits, double damages for wages and sick benefits, interest, and attorneys’ fees. The Isse case later expanded to approximately 220 individual plaintiffs.
In mediations on November 2 and 3, 2017, and without admitting liability in either matter, we agreed to settle the Hussein and Isse cases for a combined total of $8.3 million, inclusive of damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and employer payroll taxes. Eligible employees will be able to participate in either the Hussein or Isse settlements, but cannot recover in both settlements. The settlements in both cases require court approval because of the nature of the claims being released. On December 8, 2017, the Superior Court of Washington for King County approved the settlement agreement for the 220 Isse plaintiffs, and we subsequently made a settlement payment of $4.5 million to the Isse plaintiffs in January 2018.
On July 30, 2018, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle preliminarily approved the settlement in the Hussein case. The final approval hearing is set for December 5, 2018, and, if approved, the settlement proceeds will be distributed thereafter.
Castro and Marmolejo v. ABM Industries, Inc., et al., filed on October 24, 2014, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Castro” case)
On October 24, 2014, Plaintiff Marley Castro filed a class action lawsuit alleging that ABM did not reimburse janitorial employees in California for using their personal cell phones for work-related purposes, in violation of California Labor Code section 2802. On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff Lucia Marmolejo was added to the case as a named plaintiff. On October 27, 2017, plaintiffs moved for class certification seeking to represent a class of all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in the State of California with the Employee Master Job Description Code “Cleaner” (hereafter referred to as “Cleaner Employees”) beginning from October 24, 2010. ABM filed its opposition to class certification on November 27, 2017. On January 26, 2018, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court rejected plaintiffs’ proposed class, instead certifying three classes that the court formulated on its own: (1) all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in the State of California as Cleaner Employees who used a personal cell phone to punch in and out of the EPAY system and who (a) worked at an ABM facility that did not provide a biometric clock and (b) were not offered an ABM-provided cell phone during the period beginning on January 1, 2012, through the date of notice to the Class Members that a class has been certified in this action; (2) all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in the State of California as Cleaner Employees who used a personal cell phone to report unusual or suspicious circumstances to supervisors and were not offered (a) an ABM-provided cell phone or (b) a two-way radio during the period beginning four years prior to the filing of the original complaint, October 24, 2014, through the date of notice to the Class Members that a class has been certified in this action; and (3) all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in the State of California as Cleaner Employees who used a personal cell phone to respond to communications from supervisors and were not offered (a) an ABM-provided cell phone or (b) a two-way radio during the period beginning four years prior to the filing of the original complaint, October 24, 2014, through the date of notice to the Class Members that a class has been certified in this action.
On February 9, 2018, ABM filed a petition for permission to appeal the district court’s order granting class certification with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on April 30, 2018. On March 20, 2018, ABM moved to compel arbitration of the claims of certain class members pursuant to the terms of three collective bargaining agreements. In response to that motion, on May 14, 2018, the district court modified the class definition to exclude all claims arising after the operative date(s) of the applicable collective bargaining agreements (which is June 1, 2016 for one agreement and May 1, 2016 for the other two agreements). However, the district court denied the motion to compel arbitration as to claims that arose prior to the operative date(s) of the applicable collective bargaining agreements. ABM has appealed to the Ninth Circuit the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration with respect to the periods preceding the operative dates of the collective bargaining agreements. The parties have a court ordered mediation scheduled for October 15, 2018.
