Commitments And Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments And Contingencies

11. Commitments and Contingencies

Significant new commitments, material changes in commitments and ongoing contingencies as of June 30, 2011, not disclosed elsewhere, are as follows.

Compensation Arrangements – Cash Performance Unit Awards. In fiscal 2009, the Compensation Committee approved grants of performance unit awards to certain officers and employees, to be settled in cash, based on the achievement of goals tied to cumulative divisional free cash flow generated subsequent to September 30, 2008 and prior to September 30, 2028. These awards replaced all existing long-term cash awards, except for certain awards already earned at the date of grant. For purposes of these awards, free cash flow is generally defined as operating income plus depreciation, amortization and asset impairments, reduced by capital expenditures. Payments vest according to a predetermined schedule as free cash flow accumulates over time.

In fiscal 2010, the Committee terminated the performance unit awards for all participants in the corporate business unit and assigned a five-year performance period term to the free cash flow goals, aggregating $850.0 million, for the remaining participating business units. As of June 30, 2011, these remaining business units had generated approximately $179.0 million of free cash flow and accrued approximately $1.8 million of expense for the awards, including approximately $0.7 million which was paid in the December 2010 quarter. The maximum payout under the amended performance unit awards if all performance criteria were to be achieved by all participating operating divisions would be approximately $29.8 million. Due to the shortened term of the performance period, it is currently expected that the ultimate payout will be significantly less than the maximum payout.

Also in fiscal 2010, in accordance with terms of the 2010 Incentive Compensation Plan (2010 ICP), the Committee approved grants of performance unit awards to certain officers and employees in the corporate business unit, to be settled in cash, based on the achievement of goals related to consolidated free cash flow generated in the second half of fiscal 2010. For purposes of these awards, free cash flow is generally defined as operating income plus depreciation, amortization, asset impairments and Section 45 tax credits, reduced by capital expenditures. The awards were calculated using a target compensation amount for each participant and were adjusted, subject to prescribed limitations, based on the actual consolidated free cash flow generated during the six-month performance period ended September 30, 2010, using a threshold/target/maximum adjustment structure. The free cash flow generated during the performance period exceeded the maximum level, and accordingly, the awards will vest and be settled in cash in annual installments at the end of fiscal 2011 and 2012, provided the participant is still employed by Headwaters at the respective vesting dates. The awards will be further adjusted using Headwaters' average stock price for the 60 days immediately preceding each vest date.

In the December 2010 quarter, Headwaters recognized approximately $0.6 million of expense related solely to the increase in the average 60-day stock price from September 30, 2010 to December 31, 2010. Likewise, in the March 2011 quarter, Headwaters recognized approximately $0.8 million of additional expense related solely to the increase in the average 60-day stock price during the March 2011 quarter. In the June 2011 quarter, Headwaters reversed approximately $1.4 million of previously recognized expense due to a decrease in the average 60-day stock price from March 31, 2011 to June 30, 2011. All future changes in Headwaters' stock price through the final vest date of September 30, 2012 will result in adjustment of the expected liability, which adjustment (whether positive or negative) will be reflected in Headwaters' statement of operations each quarter. Assuming the average closing stock price for the 60 days in the period ended June 30, 2011 of $3.51 remains unchanged for the September 30, 2011 and 2012 vesting dates, the payouts under this arrangement, all of which have been accrued as of June 30, 2011, would be approximately $2.6 million.

In the December 2010 quarter, in accordance with terms of the 2010 ICP, the Committee approved grants of performance unit awards to participants in the corporate business unit related to consolidated free cash flow generated during fiscal year 2011, with terms similar to those described above for the 2010 six-month period. The ultimate liability for the 2011 year performance unit awards will be adjusted depending on fiscal 2011 performance as well as changes in Headwaters' stock price through the final vest date of September 30, 2013. As of June 30, 2011, approximately $0.4 million has been accrued for these awards.

Cash-Settled SAR Grants. Also during the December 2010 quarter, the Committee approved grants to certain employees of approximately 0.4 million cash-settled SARs. These SARs will vest in annual installments through September 30, 2013, provided the participant is still employed at the respective vesting dates, and will be settled in cash upon exercise by the employee. The SARs terminate on September 30, 2015 and must be exercised on or before that date. As of June 30, 2011, $0 has been accrued for these awards because the stock price at June 30, 2011 was below the grant-date stock price of $3.81. Future changes in Headwaters' stock price (in any amount beyond the grant-date stock price of $3.81) through September 30, 2015 will result in adjustment to the expected liability, which adjustment (whether positive or negative) will be reflected in Headwaters' statement of operations each quarter.

Property, Plant and Equipment – As of June 30, 2011, Headwaters was committed to spend approximately $0.4 million on capital projects that were in various stages of completion.

Legal Matters – Headwaters has ongoing litigation and asserted claims which have been incurred during the normal course of business, including the specific matters discussed below. Headwaters intends to vigorously defend or resolve these matters by settlement, as appropriate. Management does not currently believe that the outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Headwaters' operations, cash flow or financial position.

During the nine months ended June 30, 2010 and 2011, Headwaters incurred approximately $3.8 million and $16.2 million, respectively, of expense for legal matters. Historically, costs paid to outside legal counsel for litigation have comprised a majority of Headwaters' litigation-related costs. Headwaters currently believes the range of potential loss for all unresolved legal matters, excluding costs for outside counsel, is from $16.0 million up to the amounts sought by claimants and has recorded a total estimated liability as of June 30, 2011 of $16.0 million, of which $15.0 million was expensed during the March 2011 quarter. Claims and damages sought by claimants in excess of this amount are not deemed to be probable. Headwaters' outside counsel and management currently believe that unfavorable outcomes of outstanding litigation are neither probable nor remote. Accordingly, management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Headwaters' liability, nor is it possible to estimate what litigation-related costs will be in future periods.

The specific matters discussed below raise difficult and complex legal and factual issues, and the resolution of these issues is subject to many uncertainties, including the facts and circumstances of each case, the jurisdiction in which each case is brought, and the future decisions of juries, judges, and arbitrators. Therefore, although management believes that the claims asserted against Headwaters in the named cases lack merit, there is a possibility of material losses in excess of the amounts accrued if one or more of the cases were to be determined adversely against Headwaters for a substantial amount of the damages asserted. It is possible that a change in the estimates of probable liability could occur, and the changes could be material. Additionally, as with any litigation, these proceedings require that Headwaters incur substantial costs, including attorneys' fees, managerial time and other personnel resources, in pursuing resolution.

Boynton. In 1998, Headwaters entered into a technology purchase agreement with James G. Davidson and Adtech, Inc. The transaction transferred certain patent and royalty rights to Headwaters related to a synthetic fuel technology invented by Davidson. In 2002, Headwaters received a summons and complaint from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee filed by former stockholders of Adtech alleging, among other things, fraud, conspiracy, constructive trust, conversion, patent infringement and interference with contract arising out of the 1998 technology purchase agreement entered into between Davidson and Adtech on the one hand, and Headwaters on the other. All claims against Headwaters were dismissed in pretrial proceedings except claims of conspiracy and constructive trust. The District Court certified a class comprised of substantially all purported stockholders of Adtech, Inc. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages from Headwaters in the approximate amount of $43.0 million plus prejudgment interest and punitive damages. In June 2009, a jury reached a verdict in a trial in the amount of $8.7 million for the eight named plaintiffs representing a portion of the class members. In September 2010, a jury reached a verdict after a trial for the remaining 46 members of the class in the amount of $7.3 million. In April 2011, the trial court entered an order for a constructive trust in the amount of approximately $16 million (the same amount as the sum of the previous jury verdicts), denied all other outstanding motions, and entered judgment against Headwaters in the total approximate amount of $16 million, in accordance with the verdicts and order on constructive trust. The court denied all post-judgment motions by the parties. Headwaters has filed a supersedeas bond and a notice of appeal from the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Plaintiffs have also filed notice of an appeal. Because the resolution of the litigation is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Headwaters' liability.

Mainland Laboratory. HRI entered into a license agreement for the use of a fly ash carbon treatment technology with Mainland Laboratory, LTD (Mainland) in 2000. The agreement grants exclusive rights to the patented carbon treatment technology owned by Mainland. In 2006, HRI became aware of prior art relating to the Mainland patented technology which Headwaters believed invalidated the Mainland patent and HRI stopped paying royalties under the agreement. In 2007, Mainland filed suit against HRI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas with a demand for arbitration under the terms of the license agreement, for breach of contract and patent infringement. Mainland is seeking approximately $23.0 million in damages, enhancement of any damages award based on alleged willful infringement of its patent, and recovery of its costs associated with the litigation, including its attorneys' fees. Additionally, Mainland is seeking an injunction to stop HRI from practicing the technology covered by the patent. In fiscal 2009, the District Court ruled that Mainland's patent is invalid and remanded the case to arbitration for further proceedings; however, there has been no scheduling activity in the arbitration. Because the resolution of remaining claims in arbitration is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion concerning the likely outcome of this matter or the liability of HRI, if any.

Fentress Families Trust. VFL Technology Corporation (VFL), acquired by HRI in 2004, provides services related to fly ash disposal to Virginia Electric and Power Company. Approximately 395 plaintiffs, most of whom are homeowners living in the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, filed a complaint in March 2009 in the State of Virginia Chesapeake Circuit Court against 16 named defendants, including Virginia Electric and Power Company, certain persons associated with the Battlefield Golf Course, including the owner, developer, and contractors, and others, including VFL and HRI. The complaint alleges that fly ash used to construct the golf course has been carried in the air and contaminated ground water exposing plaintiffs to toxic chemicals and causing property damage. The amended complaint alleges negligence and nuisance and seeks a new water system, monitoring costs, site clean-up, and other damages totaling approximately $1.8 billion, including certain injunctive relief. A second lawsuit was filed in August 2009 and has been consolidated with the first action where approximately 62 plaintiffs have sued essentially the same defendants, alleging similar claims and requests for damages, in excess of $1.5 billion. A defendant filed a cross-claim for indemnity, breach of contract, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and tortious interference against other defendants, including HRI, claiming compensatory damages of approximately $15.0 million, punitive damages, as well as remediation of the golf course site. Discovery of evidence among the parties has begun. HRI has filed insurance claims, which are the subject of dispute and a separate lawsuit, although insurance is paying for the defense of the underlying case. The amount of the claims against HRI exceeds the amount of insurance. Because resolution of the litigation is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of HRI's liability, or the insurers' obligation to indemnify HRI against loss, if any.

Archstone. Archstone owns an apartment complex in Westbury, New York. Archstone alleges that moisture penetrated the building envelope and damaged moisture sensitive parts of the buildings which began to rot and grow mold. In 2008, Archstone evicted its tenants and began repairing the twenty-one apartment buildings. Also in 2008, Archstone filed a complaint in the Nassau County Supreme Court of the State of New York against the prime contractor and its performance bond surety, the designer, and Eldorado Stone, LLC which supplied architectural stone that was installed by others during construction. The prime contractor then sued over a dozen subcontractors who in turn sued others. Archstone claims as damages approximately $36.0 million in repair costs, $15.0 million in lost lease payments, $7.0 million paid to tenants who sued Archstone, and $7.0 million for class action defense fees, plus prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. Eldorado Stone answered denying liability and tendered the matter to its insurers who are paying for the defense of the case. The court has dismissed all claims against Eldorado Stone, except the claim of negligence, and discovery is underway. Because the resolution of the action is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion concerning the likely outcome of this matter, the liability of Eldorado Stone, if any, or the insurers' obligation to indemnify Eldorado Stone against loss, if any.

Headwaters Building Products Matters. There are litigation and pending and threatened claims made against certain subsidiaries of Headwaters Building Products (HBP), a division within Headwaters' light building products segment, with respect to several types of exterior finish systems manufactured and sold by its subsidiaries for application by contractors on residential and commercial buildings. Typically, litigation and these claims are defended by such subsidiaries' insurance carriers. The plaintiffs or claimants in these matters have alleged that the structures have suffered damage from latent or progressive water penetration due to some alleged failure of the building product or wall system. One claim involves alleged defects associated with components of an Exterior Insulating and Finish System (EIFS) which was produced for a limited time (through 1997) by the HBP subsidiaries. Other claims involve alleged liabilities associated with certain stucco, mortar, aerated concrete block and architectural stone products which are produced and sold by certain subsidiaries of HBP.

Typically, the claims cite damages for alleged personal injuries and punitive damages for alleged unfair business practices in addition to asserting more conventional damage claims for alleged economic loss and damage to property. To date, claims made against such subsidiaries have been paid by their insurers, with the exception of minor deductibles or self-insured retentions, although such insurance carriers typically have issued "reservation of rights" letters. While, to date, none of these proceedings have required that HBP incur substantial costs, there is no guarantee of insurance coverage or continuing coverage. These and future proceedings may result in substantial costs to HBP, including attorneys' fees, managerial time and other personnel resources and costs. Adverse resolution of these proceedings could have a materially negative effect on HBP's business, financial condition, and results of operation, and its ability to meet its financial obligations. Although HBP carries general and product liability insurance, HBP cannot assure that such insurance coverage will remain available, that HBP's insurance carrier will remain viable, or that the insured amounts will cover all future claims in excess of HBP's uninsured retention. Future rate increases may also make such insurance uneconomical for HBP to maintain. In addition, the insurance policies maintained by HBP exclude claims for damages resulting from exterior insulating finish systems, or EIFS, that have manifested after March 2003. Because resolution of the litigation and claims is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of HBP's liability.

Other. Headwaters and its subsidiaries are also involved in other legal proceedings that have arisen in the normal course of business.