Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended |
Sep. 30, 2013 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies |
|
(a) General |
|
Estimated losses from loss contingencies are accrued by a charge to income when information available indicates that it is probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If a loss contingency is not probable or reasonably estimable, disclosure of the loss contingency is made in the consolidated financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a loss may be incurred and that the loss could be material. |
|
(b) Commitments and Contingencies |
|
Commitments |
|
The Company leases coal mining and other equipment under long-term capital and operating leases with varying terms. In addition, the Company leases mineral interests and surface rights from land owners under various terms and royalty rates. |
|
The Company has obligations for a federal coal lease, which contains an estimated 222,000 tons of proven and probable coal reserves in the Powder River Basin. The annual installments in the period from 2013 through 2015 of $42,130 are due each November until the obligation is satisfied. |
|
Contingencies |
|
Extensive regulation of the impacts of mining on the environment and of maintaining workplace safety, and related litigation, has had or may have a significant effect on the Company’s costs of production and results of operations. Further regulations, legislation or litigation in these areas may also cause the Company’s sales or profitability to decline by increasing costs or by hindering the Company’s ability to continue mining at existing operations or to permit new operations. |
|
During the normal course of business, contract-related matters arise between the Company and its customers. When a loss related to such matters is considered probable and can reasonably be estimated, the Company records a liability. During the nine months ended September 30, 2013, the Company recorded a gain of $55,454 in other expenses in the condensed consolidated statement of operations related to the resolution of a contract-related matter. |
|
(c) Guarantees and Financial Instruments with Off-Balance Sheet Risk |
|
In the normal course of business, the Company is a party to certain guarantees and financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk, such as bank letters of credit, performance or surety bonds, and other guarantees and indemnities related to the obligations of affiliated entities which are not reflected in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Management does not expect any material losses to result from these guarantees or other off-balance sheet financial instruments. |
|
Letters of Credit |
|
As of September 30, 2013, the Company had $150,621 of letters of credit outstanding under its senior secured revolving facility. |
|
(d) Legal Proceedings |
The Company’s legal proceedings range from cases brought by a single plaintiff to purported class actions. These legal proceedings, as well as governmental examinations, involve various business units and a variety of claims including, but not limited to, contract disputes, personal injury claims, property damage claims (including those resulting from blasting, trucking and flooding), environmental and safety issues, and employment matters. While some matters pending against the Company or its subsidiaries specify the damages claimed by the plaintiffs, many seek an unquantified amount of damages or are at very early stages of the legal process. Even when the amount of damages claimed against the Company or its subsidiaries is stated, (i) the claimed amount may be exaggerated or unsupported; (ii) the claim may be based on a novel legal theory or involve a large number of parties; (iii) there may be uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class; (iv) there may be uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; and/or (v) there may be significant factual issues to be resolved. As a result, the Company may be unable to estimate a range of possible loss for matters that have not yet progressed sufficiently through discovery and development of important factual information and legal issues. Other matters have progressed sufficiently that the Company is able to estimate a range of possible loss. Accordingly, for those legal proceedings and governmental examinations disclosed below as to which a loss is reasonably possible in future periods and for which the Company is able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current estimated range is up to $350,000 in excess of the accrued liability (if any) related to those matters. This aggregate range represents the Company’s estimate of additional possible loss in excess of the accrued liability (if any) with respect to these matters and net of third party indemnification arrangements (if any, other than insurance) as described below related to those matters, based on currently available information, including any damages claimed by the plaintiffs, and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and inherent uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, the Company may have only preliminary, incomplete, or inaccurate information about the facts underlying a claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties, regulators, indemnitors or co-defendants, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that the Company had not accounted for in its estimate because it had considered that outcome to be remote. Furthermore, as noted above, the aggregate range does not include any matters for which the Company is not able to estimate a range of possible loss. Accordingly, the estimated aggregate range of possible loss does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure. The legal proceedings and governmental examinations underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. The Company intends to defend these legal proceedings vigorously, litigating or settling cases where in the Company’s judgment it would be in the best interest of shareholders to do so. |
|
For purposes of FASB ASC Topic 450 (“ASC 450”), an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight.” ASC 450 requires accrual for a liability when it is (a) “probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of loss” and (b) “the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.” If a range of loss is estimated, the best estimate within the range is required to be accrued. If no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is required to be accrued. |
|
The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and governmental examinations that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the reserves previously recorded. Excluding fees paid to external legal counsel, the Company recognized expense, net of expected insurance recoveries, associated with litigation-related reserves of $116,552 and $7,893 during the three months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. |
|
Federal Securities Class Actions |
|
Upper Big Branch (“UBB”) Purported Securities Class Action |
|
On April 29, 2010 and May 28, 2010, two purported class actions that were subsequently consolidated into one case were brought against, among others, Massey Energy Company (“Massey”), now the Company’s subsidiary Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc. (“Alpha Appalachia”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in connection with alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The lead plaintiffs allege, purportedly on behalf of a class of former Massey stockholders, that (i) Massey and certain former Massey directors and officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by intentionally misleading the market about the safety of Massey’s operations and that (ii) Massey’s former officers violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons alleged to have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that this action is a proper class action; certification as class representatives; an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon; and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. |
|
On February 16, 2011, the lead plaintiffs moved to partially lift the statutory discovery stay imposed under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On March 3, 2011, the United States moved to intervene and to stay discovery until the completion of criminal proceedings allegedly arising from the same facts that allegedly give rise to this action. On July 9, 2012, the court entered an order maintaining the stay of discovery until the earlier of either the completion of the United States’ criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2013. The court has extended the stay several times; most recently, on July 18, 2013, the court further extended the existing discovery stay until January 15, 2014. |
|
On April 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint. On March 27, 2012, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2012, the Company filed its answer to the consolidated amended class action complaint. |
|
In early October 2013, the parties participated in mediation. The parties have made significant progress toward reaching a tentative understanding to settle the case for $265,000. Additional material terms must still be negotiated. If a definitive settlement is achieved and approved by the court, the settlement would result in the dismissal of the action. |
|
The Company expects insurance recoveries of approximately $70,000 to help cover the cost of the settlement. In connection with these developments, Alpha recorded an increase in its loss contingency accruals of approximately $115,000 during the three months ended September 30, 2013. The Company plans to continue settlement discussions in an effort to resolve all outstanding issues, including the form of consideration. Whether the Company can resolve those issues, and when, remains uncertain. |
|
Emerald Purported Securities Class Action |
|
On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a putative class of former Massey stockholders was filed in Boone County, West Virginia Circuit Court. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about the Company’s Emerald mine in its public filings associated with the acquisition of Massey by the Company (the “Massey Acquisition”). The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. |
|
On August 16, 2012, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia. On September 13, 2012, the defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to remand. |
|
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on October 19, 2012, and the plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on November 2, 2012. On November 5, 2012, the federal court remanded the case back to the Boone County Circuit Court (without ruling on the pending motion to dismiss). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Boone County Circuit Court on February 6, 2013. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on March 22, 2013 and March 29, 2013, which motions are currently pending. The Boone County Circuit Court has set a preliminary trial date of June 24, 2014. |
UBB Explosion and Related Investigations and Litigation |
|
On April 5, 2010, before the Massey Acquisition by the Company, an explosion occurred at the UBB mine, resulting in the deaths of 29 miners. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”), the Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training of the State of West Virginia (“State”), and the Governor’s Independent Investigation Panel (“GIIP”) initiated investigations into the cause of the UBB explosion and related issues. Additionally, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia (the “Office”) commenced a grand jury investigation. The GIIP published its final report on May 19, 2011; MSHA released its final report on December 6, 2011; and the State released its final report on February 23, 2012. |
|
On December 6, 2011, the Company, the Office and the United States Department of Justice entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (the “Agreement”) resolving the criminal investigation against Massey and its affiliates relating to the UBB explosion and other health and safety related issues at Massey, and the Company also reached a comprehensive settlement with MSHA resolving outstanding civil citations, violations, and orders related to MSHA’s investigation arising from the UBB explosion and other non-UBB related matters involving legacy Massey entities prior to the Massey Acquisition. The Agreement does not resolve individual responsibilities related to the UBB explosion. |
|
Under the terms of the Agreement and MSHA settlement, the Company has agreed to pay outstanding MSHA fines, and has agreed to invest in additional measures designed to improve miner health and safety, provide restitution to the families of the fallen miners and two individuals injured in the UBB explosion, and create a charitable organization to research mine safety. The Company has further agreed to cooperate fully with all governmental agencies in all continuing investigations and prosecutions against any individuals that arise out of the UBB explosion and related conduct described in the Agreement until such investigations and prosecutions are concluded. |
|
The Company cannot predict the outcome of these investigations, including whether or not any individual will become subject to possible criminal and civil penalties or enforcement actions. In order to accommodate these investigations, the UBB mine was initially idled. On April 20, 2012, the Company was authorized by regulatory authorities to close the UBB mine permanently, and on June 19, 2012, the sealing of the mine was completed. |
|
On June 28, 2012, sixteen individuals who claim to have been injured in the UBB explosion filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to amend or set aside the Agreement. On July 27, 2012, Alpha and Alpha Appalachia filed a motion to dismiss. The injury claims of those sixteen individuals were separately settled in August 2012, and on August 29, 2012, the court ordered that the action be dismissed and stricken from the docket. |
|
On October 19, 2012, the administrators for the estates of three miners who died in the UBB explosion filed an action against Alpha and Alpha Appalachia in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia claiming they are entitled to “criminal restitution” under the Agreement. On November 27, 2012, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs were subsequently granted leave to amend their complaint, which they filed on January 23, 2013, rendering the defendants’ previously filed motion to dismiss moot. On May 10, 2013, the court dismissed the amended complaint. On July 17, 2013, the plaintiffs filed another complaint seeking “criminal restitution” under the Agreement, which defendants moved to dismiss on August 16, 2013. The same plaintiffs filed their appeal of the May dismissal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on July 29, 2013. On October 18, 2013, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On October 30, 2013, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint filed on July 17, 2013 with prejudice. |
|
Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Suits |
|
Twenty of the twenty-nine families of the deceased miners filed wrongful death suits against Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court and Wyoming County Circuit Court. In addition, as of July 19, 2013, two seriously injured employees had filed personal injury claims against Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court seeking damages for physical injuries and/or alleged psychiatric injuries, and thirty-nine employees had filed lawsuits against Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court and Wyoming County Circuit Court alleging emotional distress or personal injuries due to their proximity to the explosion. On April 19, 2012, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Wyoming County lawsuits to Boone County. |
|
On October 19, 2011, the Boone County Circuit Court ordered that the cases pending before it be mediated by a panel of three mediators. These mediations are, per order of the court, strictly confidential. The Company reached agreements to settle with all twenty-nine families of the deceased miners as well as the two employees who were seriously injured. The settlements reached with the families of the deceased miners have received court approval. The settlements relating to the two serious injuries did not require court approval. |
|
On May 4, 2012, the Boone County Circuit Court ordered that the remaining personal injury and emotional distress claims continue to be mediated through July 6, 2012. Until that date, a stay was in place for all remaining cases until further order from the court. The stay was lifted on July 6, 2012 but mediation was ordered to continue. On July 20, 2012, the stay was reinstated for discovery-related activities at the request of the United States Attorney and by agreement of the parties. On August 19, 2013, at the request of the United States Attorney, the stay was extended until the earlier of either the completion of the United States’ criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2014. Mediation efforts in August 2012 successfully resolved all but two of the personal injury and emotional distress claims. On June 26, 2013, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss in part, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims alleging the tort of outrage and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Two of plaintiffs’ claims remain pending. The Wyoming County lawsuits were settled and dismissed prior to the court ruling on the Company’s motion to transfer. |
|
On April 5, 2012, one of the families of the deceased miners filed a class action suit in Boone County Circuit Court, purportedly on behalf of the families that settled their claims prior to the mediation, alleging fraudulent inducement into a contract, naming as defendants Massey, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, the Company’s CEO and the Company’s Board of Directors. |
|
On June 17, 2013 and August 29, 2013 two complaints were filed in Boone County Circuit Court alleging personal injury claims relating to the UBB explosion. The Company moved to dismiss both complaints on July 17, 2013 and October 16, 2013 respectively. |
|
Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act Action |
|
On June 1, 2011, certain of the plaintiffs who filed wrongful death cases filed a complaint against Massey, Massey Coal Services, Inc., Performance Coal Company, and certain individuals in the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia, alleging that the Massey Acquisition represented a fraudulent transfer intended to prevent plaintiffs from recovering damages in their wrongful death actions. Plaintiffs request that the court order defendants to post a bond of at least $500,000. Each plaintiff in this action has agreed to settle their wrongful death cases, as discussed above, and as part of those settlements, has also agreed to dismiss this action. On May 14, 2012, the court entered an order dismissing this case with prejudice. |
|
Derivative and Related Class Action Litigation |
|
UBB-Related Derivatives Actions |
|
A number of purported former Massey stockholders brought lawsuits derivatively, purportedly on behalf of Massey, in West Virginia and Delaware state courts, in connection with the April 5, 2010 explosion at the UBB mine and in connection with claims allegedly arising out of the Massey Acquisition. Certain of these former stockholders also initiated contempt proceedings in West Virginia state court in connection with alleged violations of the settlement of a previous derivative lawsuit. In addition, these and other purported former Massey stockholders have asserted class action claims allegedly arising out of the Massey Acquisition in Delaware and West Virginia state courts and Virginia federal court. These cases are summarized below. |
|
Delaware Chancery Court Suit |
|
In a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation (“In re Massey”), a number of purported former Massey stockholders (the “Delaware Plaintiffs”) allege, purportedly on behalf of Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey’s employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the explosion at UBB, and by wasting corporate assets by paying allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former Massey Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of his retirement package. The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of a purported class of former Massey stockholders, that certain former Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to secure the best price possible, by failing to secure any downside protection for the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly eliminating the possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to a “no shop” provision and a termination fee. In addition, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to the Massey Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants faced on the Delaware Plaintiffs’ derivative claims. Finally, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully disclose all material information necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Massey Acquisition. |
|
The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. (“Merger Sub”), the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which, at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with and into Massey, as defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former Massey directors’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating the former Massey directors’ potential liability on the derivative claims. Two additional putative class actions were brought against Massey, certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were consolidated for all purposes with In re Massey on February 9, 2011 and February 24, 2011, respectively. |
|
The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin consummation of the Massey Acquisition. The court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2011. |
|
On June 10, 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs’ derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On June 10 and 13, 2011, certain former Massey director and officer defendants moved to dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the remaining direct claims. |
|
On September 14, 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 1, 2012, without prejudice to the parties’ right to seek an extension or a termination of the stay by application to the court. The court approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day. The court has extended the stay several times; most recently, on July 29, 2013, the court further extended the existing discovery stay until the earlier of the completion of the United States’ criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2014. |
|
West Virginia State Court Derivative Suit |
|
In a case filed on April 15, 2010 in West Virginia state court, three purported former Massey stockholders (the “West Virginia Plaintiffs”) allege, purportedly on behalf of Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey’s employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the explosion at UBB. The West Virginia Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant and in favor of Massey for the amount of damages sustained by Massey as a result of defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and an award to the West Virginia Plaintiffs of the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses. |
|
On May 2, 2011, the West Virginia Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint to add Alpha and Merger Sub as additional defendants and to add claims allegedly arising out of the then-proposed Massey Acquisition. In their proposed amended complaint, the West Virginia Plaintiffs allege that certain former Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the highest price reasonably available for Massey and by failing to disclose material information to Massey’s then-stockholders in connection with the stockholder vote on the Massey Acquisition. The West Virginia Plaintiffs also allege that Massey, Merger Sub and the Company aided and abetted the former Massey directors’ breaches of fiduciary duty. The West Virginia Plaintiffs further allege that certain former Massey directors wasted corporate assets by failing to maintain sufficient internal controls over Massey’s safety and environmental reporting; failing to properly consider the interests of Massey and its stockholders, including the value of the derivative claims asserted by the West Virginia Plaintiffs in the Massey Acquisition; failing to conduct proper supervision; paying undeserved incentive compensation to certain Massey executive directors, particularly former Massey Chairman and CEO Don L. Blankenship during Massey’s alleged years of noncompliance with safety regulations and more recently as part of Blankenship’s retirement package; incurring millions of dollars in fines due to safety and environmental violations; and incurring potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of legal liability and/or legal costs to defend defendants’ allegedly unlawful actions. Finally, the West Virginia Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint alleges that certain former Massey directors were unjustly enriched by their compensation as directors. |
|
On May 25, 2011, the West Virginia Plaintiffs filed a petition with the West Virginia Supreme Court for a preliminary injunction against the consummation of the Massey Acquisition, which was denied on May 31, 2011. |
|
On June 24, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the West Virginia Plaintiffs’ original complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs, as former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those claims, or, alternatively, to stay this case in favor of In re Massey, described above. Defendants also filed an opposition to the West Virginia Plaintiffs’ motion to amend. On August 19, 2011, the West Virginia Plaintiffs filed a combined memorandum in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss or stay and in further support of their motion to amend. On August 22, 2011, defendants filed a memorandum in further support of their motion to dismiss or stay and in further opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to amend. On August 23, 2011, the court held a hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion to amend. Without deciding the motions, the court requested the parties to submit competing proposed orders containing findings of fact and conclusions of law and proposed scheduling orders for the court’s consideration, which the parties did on September 9, 2011. The motions remain pending. |
|
West Virginia State Court - Contempt Proceedings |
|
On April 16, 2010, Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust (“Manville”), one of the West Virginia Plaintiffs, filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, requesting that the court initiate civil contempt proceedings against certain of the then-current members of Massey’s board of directors with respect to alleged violations of a settlement agreement. In July 2007, Manville filed a complaint, purportedly on behalf of Massey, alleging that certain of Massey’s then directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties. On May 20, 2008, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, which the court subsequently approved. The settlement provided for a release of all claims that were or could have been asserted on behalf of Massey in exchange for, among other things, certain corporate governance reforms and an agreement that the Massey board of directors would make a Corporate Social Responsibility Report to its stockholders on an annual basis that would include, among other things, a report on Massey’s environmental and worker safety compliance. Manville alleges that Massey’s 2009 Corporate Social Responsibility Report did not contain a sufficient report on worker safety compliance. On April 22, 2010, the court issued an order for a rule to show cause, initiating the contempt proceedings. |
|
On May 31, 2011, Manville, now joined by the other two West Virginia Plaintiffs, filed a new petition for civil contempt, requesting that the court initiate civil contempt proceedings against certain of the then-current members of Massey’s board of directors and certain then-current Massey officers in connection with certain additional alleged violations of the settlement. |
|
On June 22, 2011, the individual defendants that had been served with the new petition filed a motion to dismiss that petition, as well as the original April 16 petition, and also moved to vacate the 2008 order, in which the court approved the settlement, as against them. On June 28, 2011, nominal defendant Alpha Appalachia joined in the individual defendants’ motions to dismiss and vacate. On July 21, 2011, the court held a hearing on the defendants’ motions to dismiss and vacate. |
|
On September 29, 2011, the court granted the individual defendants’ motions to dismiss and vacate and ordered that the contempt proceedings be terminated in their entirety. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the contempt proceedings to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. On September 12, 2013, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the September 29, 2011 order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the contempt petitions. |
|
Mine Water Discharge Suits |
|
On March 20, 2012, three environmental groups filed a citizen’s suit against two of the Company’s subsidiaries, Alex Energy, Inc. and Elk Run Coal Company, Inc., in federal court in the Southern District of West Virginia alleging violations of the terms of the subsidiaries’ water discharge permits. The plaintiffs seek a civil penalty as well as injunctive relief. |
|
On April 16, 2012, three environmental groups filed a citizen’s suit in federal court in the Southern District of West Virginia against one of the Company’s subsidiaries, Boone East Development Company (“Boone East”), which owns land previously mined and reclaimed by other companies, alleging that Boone East is discharging pollutants without a permit. Plaintiffs have since voluntarily terminated this action. |
|
On May 9, 2012, three environmental groups filed a citizen’s suit in federal court in the Southern District of West Virginia against two of the Company’s subsidiaries alleging violations of the terms of the subsidiaries’ water discharge permits. The plaintiffs seek a civil penalty as well as injunctive relief. |
|
On May 15, 2012, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection filed a civil enforcement action against the Company’s subsidiary Riverside Energy Company, LLC, in McDowell County Circuit Court in West Virginia seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief based on alleged discharge of selenium in excess of permitted levels. |
|
On July 16, 2012, three environmental groups filed a citizen’s suit in federal court in the Southern District of West Virginia against seven of the Company’s subsidiaries alleging violations of the terms of the subsidiaries’ water discharge permits. The plaintiffs seek a civil penalty as well as injunctive relief. |
|
On December 31, 2012 and January 2, 2013, two separate environmental groups filed citizen’s suits in federal court in the Western District of Pennsylvania against Emerald Coal Resources, L.P., and other of the Company’s subsidiaries, alleging violations of the terms of the subsidiaries’ water discharge permits. The first of these cases has since been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in the remaining case seek a civil penalty as well as injunctive relief. |
On March 27, 2013, the Company’s subsidiary Alex Energy, Inc. (“Alex”) was served with a complaint from the Sierra Club, and others, alleging improper discharges by Alex into Spruce Run and Road Fork of Robinson Creek in Nicholas County, West Virginia. Alex has appropriate permits for discharges into those tributaries, and the discharges discussed in the plaintiffs’ complaint are undertaken by Alex in compliance with its permits. |
On April 10, 2013, the Company’s subsidiary Bandmill Coal Co. (“Bandmill”) was served with a complaint from the Sierra Club, and others, alleging discharges of selenium from the site of Bandmill’s former Tower Mountain surface mine into waters of the United States without a proper permit. The Tower Mountain site is closed, the property has been reclaimed and West Virginia regulators previously determined that Bandmill no longer needs a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit for the Tower Mountain site at issue. Bandmill was also released from its obligations to monitor and treat water discharging from the site. Bandmill believes it has operated in compliance with all laws and regulations regarding discharges from the Tower Mountain site. |
On July 23, 2013, the Company’s subsidiary, Alex Energy, Inc., was served with a complaint alleging that discharges from the PGM No. 1 surface mine into Hardway Branch of Twentymile Creek violated state water quality standards for selenium. |
On July 29, 2013, the Company’s subsidiary, Pigeon Creek Processing Co. (“Pigeon Creek”), was notified by environmental groups that they intend to sue Pigeon Creek for discharging selenium from the Stonega impoundment area without the proper authorization in the NPDES permit. |
On October 3, 2013, Bandmill was notified by environmental groups that they intend to sue Bandmill for alleged discharges from the Right Hand Fork Surface Mine in connection with state water quality standards for selenium. |
The Company is currently in discussions with the EPA about addressing certain of these and other matters. |
Nicewonder Litigation |
|
In December 2004, prior to the Company’s acquisition of Nicewonder in October 2005, the Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation (“ACTF”), a division of the West Virginia State Building and Construction Trades Council, brought an action against the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways (“WVDOH”) and Nicewonder Contracting, Inc. (“NCI”), which became the Company’s wholly-owned indirect subsidiary as a result of the Nicewonder acquisition, in the United States District Court in the Southern District of West Virginia. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the contract between NCI and the State of West Virginia related to NCI’s road construction project was illegal as a violation of applicable West Virginia and federal competitive bidding and prevailing wage laws and sought to enjoin performance of the contract, but did not seek monetary damages. |
|
On September 30, 2009, the District Court issued an order that dismissed or denied for lack of standing all of the plaintiff’s claims under federal law and remanded the remaining state claims to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia for resolution. On May 7, 2010, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County entered summary judgment in favor of NCI. On June 22, 2011, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court order granting summary judgment in favor of NCI, and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Following remand, ACTF filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Circuit Court denied on November 9, 2011. ACTF challenged the order denying its summary judgment motion to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. |
|
On June 21, 2012, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals issued an opinion finding that ACTF has standing to pursue its claims and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia for further proceedings. NCI’s portion of the highway project under the contract is complete. |
|
The case is now pending in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. A settlement between NCI and ACTF was agreed upon in early January 2013, prior to the scheduled trial date, January 14, 2013. The Company does not expect to incur any out-of-pocket expenditures in connection with the settlement. The trial proceeded among the remaining parties. |
On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a purported class action lawsuit against NCI filed in the Circuit Court of Mingo County, West Virginia by a former NCI employee (the “NCI Employee Litigation”). The plaintiff in the NCI Employee Litigation is represented by the same attorney who represents the plaintiff in the ACTF litigation, and the complaint’s allegations raise issues similar to those in the ACTF litigation. |
On February 26, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County ruled that the contract in dispute in the ACTF litigation, as well as the awarding and implementation of the contract were in violation of West Virginia law. The Company is reviewing the Court’s ruling and evaluating its implications in relation to the NCI Employee Litigation. The Company believes that NCI has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the NCI Employee Litigation. |
NCI filed its answer to the complaint in the NCI Employee Litigation on March 4, 2013. On April 23, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, granted NCI’s motion to transfer and entered an agreed order transferring the NCI Employee Litigation from the Circuit Court of Mingo County to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. |
Fluor Litigation |
|
Alpha Appalachia and certain of its subsidiaries are also parties to a number of lawsuits and other legal proceedings related to certain non-coal businesses (the “Prior Business”) previously conducted by its former affiliate Fluor Corporation. These lawsuits include the Alexander-Pederson-Helig cases in which two of Alpha Appalachia’s subsidiaries, Appalachia Holding Company (“Appalachia Holding”) and DRIH Corporation (“DRIH”), were named defendants along with Fluor. In July 2011, those cases resulted in a jury award in the City of St. Louis Circuit Court in favor of the plaintiffs for $38,500 in compensatory and economic damages and $320,000 in punitive damages. The total aggregate judgment against Alpha Appalachia’s subsidiaries is $118,500. |
|
Under the terms of the Distribution Agreement entered into by Alpha Appalachia and Fluor as of November 30, 2000 in connection with the spin-off of Fluor by Massey, Fluor agreed to indemnify Massey with respect to all such legal proceedings and assumed defense of the proceedings. Consistent with that agreement, in September 2011, Fluor submitted to the court a number of surety bonds covering the full amount of the judgments against Fluor and Alpha Appalachia’s subsidiaries in the Alexander-Pederson-Helig cases. On January 24, 2012, Fluor moved for a reduction in the surety bond amount pending appeal. The Missouri Court of Appeals granted Fluor’s motion on March 1, 2012 and reduced the amount of the surety bonds required to be submitted by the defendants collectively to $150,000, which Fluor has submitted on behalf of itself and Alpha Appalachia’s subsidiaries. The Company has recorded an indemnity receivable of $118,500 and has accrued a liability of $118,500, included in prepaid expenses and other current assets and accrued expenses and other current liabilities, respectively, in the condensed consolidated balance sheet at September 30, 2013. The appeal of the judgments in the Alexander-Pederson-Helig cases remains pending. |
|
In connection with Fluor’s sale of the Prior Business to a group of purchasers (the “Rennert Entities”) in 1994, the Rennert Entities had agreed to indemnify Fluor and its affiliates for losses and liabilities arising from the Prior Business. In late 2010, the Rennert Entities settled with the plaintiffs in the Alexander-Pederson-Helig cases without indemnifying or obtaining a release for the benefit of Fluor and Alpha Appalachia’s subsidiaries. |
|
In January 2012, the Rennert Entities filed suit against Fluor and two of Alpha Appalachia’s subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri seeking return of funds previously paid by the Rennert Entities to settle personal injury and property damage claims against Fluor and Alpha Appalachia’s subsidiaries allegedly arising out of the Prior Business and a declaration of non-liability for indemnification with respect to the Alexander-Pederson-Helig cases and any future claims or judgments against Fluor and Alpha Appalachia’s subsidiaries arising out of the Prior Business. Also in January 2012, Fluor filed suit against the Rennert Entities in Missouri state court alleging various breach of contract and tort claims and seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the Rennert Entities’ indemnification obligations to Fluor and Alpha Appalachia’s subsidiaries against claims arising out of the Prior Business. On February 21, 2012, Appalachia Holding and DRIH joined Fluor as plaintiffs in this suit. At the same time, Fluor, Appalachia Holding and DRIH moved to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay the suit pending in federal court in Missouri in favor of the Missouri state court action. On June 21, 2012, Missouri federal court stayed the case before it in favor of the suit pending in the Missouri state court. |
|
On April 4, 2012, the Rennert entities moved to dismiss the Missouri state court action. On July 13, 2012, the Missouri state court scheduled an expedited hearing on the Rennert entities’ pending motions to dismiss for August 15, 2012. On October 5, 2012, the court denied the Rennert entities’ motions to dismiss each of Fluor’s and Alpha Appalachia’s subsidiaries’ claims except for one claim for contribution, which the court dismissed. All defendants answered on October 25, 2012. Discovery has commenced and is ongoing. |
|
Harman Litigation |
|
In December 1997, Wellmore Coal Corporation (“Wellmore”), then a subsidiary of A. T. Massey Coal Company (“A. T. Massey”), which is now a subsidiary of the Company, declared force majeure under its coal supply agreement with Harman Mining Corporation (“Harman”) and reduced the amount of coal to be purchased from Harman. In October 1998, Harman and several entities affiliated with it, as well as their ultimate sole shareholder (together “Harman plaintiffs”), sued A.T. Massey and five of its subsidiaries (the “Massey Defendants”) in the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia, alleging that the Massey Defendants tortiously interfered with Wellmore’s agreement with Harman, causing Harman to go out of business. In August 2002, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $50,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. |
|
In October 2006, the Massey Defendants appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“WV Supreme Court”). In November 2007, the WV Supreme Court issued a 3-2 majority opinion reversing the judgment against the Massey Defendants and remanding the case to the Circuit Court of Boone County with directions to enter an order dismissing the case, with prejudice, in its entirety. On motion by the Harman plaintiffs, the WV Supreme Court agreed to rehear the case but, in April 2008, it again reversed the judgment against the Massey Defendants and remanded the case with direction to enter an order dismissing the case, with prejudice, in its entirety. |
|
In July 2008, the Harman plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court (the “U.S. Supreme Court”) to review the WV Supreme Court’s dismissal of their claims. In December 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case based on the question of whether a justice of the WV Supreme Court should have recused himself from the appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the justice should have recused himself and ruled in June 2009 that the matter should be reheard by the WV Supreme Court. |
|
The WV Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the matter in September 2009, and in November 2009 reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that all claims brought in connection with the parties dealings must be brought in Virginia. The Harman plaintiffs subsequently requested that the WV Supreme Court reconsider its decision; the WV Supreme Court denied that request. |
|
In November 2010, Harman plaintiffs re-filed their claims in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Virginia, this time solely against A.T. Massey, seeking compensatory damages of approximately $44,000, plus pre- and post-judgment interest and punitive damages. A. T. Massey filed a plea of res judicata, and in December 2011 the Buchanan County Circuit Court granted the plea and dismissed the Harman plaintiffs’ claims. The Harman plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Virginia Supreme Court, and on April 18, 2013, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Buchanan County Circuit Court, finding that res judicata did not bar the Harman plaintiffs’ claims. The matter was remanded to the Buchanan County Circuit Court for further proceedings, and that court has set a trial date in late April 2014. |
|
Other Legal Proceedings |
|
In addition to the matters disclosed above, the Company and its subsidiaries are involved in a number of legal proceedings and governmental examinations incident to its normal business activities. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings, the Company does not believe that any liability arising from these matters individually or in the aggregate should have a material impact upon its consolidated cash flows, results of operations or financial condition. |