Legal Proceedings and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Legal Proceedings and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings and Contingencies

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In management’s opinion, the Company has adequate legal defenses and/or insurance coverage with respect to the eventuality of such actions and does not believe the outcome of any pending legal proceedings will be material to the Company’s financial position or result of operations.

IMTT Bayonne — Remediation

The Bayonne, New Jersey terminal, portions of which have been acquired over a 30-year period, have pervasive remediation requirements that were assumed at the time of purchase from the various former owners. One former owner retained environmental remediation responsibilities for a purchased site and shares in other remediation costs. These remediation requirements are documented in two memoranda of agreement and an administrative consent order with the State of New Jersey. Remediation efforts entail removal of free product, soil treatment, repair/replacement of sewer systems, and the implementation of containment and monitoring systems. These remediation activities are estimated to span a period of ten to twenty or more years and cost from $30 million to $65 million over the next 20 years. The cost of the remediation activities at the terminal are estimated based on currently available information, in undiscounted U.S. dollars and is inherently subject to relatively large fluctuation.

Shareholder Litigation

On April 23, 2018, a complaint captioned City of Riviera Beach General Employees Retirement System v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., et al., Case 1:18-cv-03608 (VSB), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A substantially identical complaint captioned Daniel Fajardo v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03744 (VSB) was filed in the same court on April 27, 2018. Both complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of MIC common stock between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018. The named defendants in both cases were the Company and four current or former officers of MIC and one of its subsidiaries, IMTT Holdings LLC. The complaints in both actions allege that the Company and the individual defendants knowingly made material misstatements and omitted material facts in its public disclosures concerning the Company’s and IMTT’s business and the sustainability of the Company’s dividend to stockholders. On January 30, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and order consolidating the two cases, appointing Moab Partners, L.P. (Moab) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Moab’s selection of lead counsel. On February 20, 2019, Moab filed a consolidated class action complaint. In addition to the claims noted above, the consolidated class action complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company’s November 2016 secondary public offering of common stock. The consolidated amended complaint also adds Macquarie Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc., Barclays Capital Inc. and seven additional current or former officers or directors of MIC as defendants. On April 22, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Briefing concluded on July 22, 2019. The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the claims asserted, which the Company believes are entirely meritless.

On August 9, 2018, a shareholder derivative complaint captioned Phyllis Wright v. Liam Stewart, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07174 (VSB), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A substantially identical complaint captioned Raymond Greenlee v. James Hooke, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-09339 (VSB) was filed in the same court on October 12, 2018. A third and substantially similar shareholder derivative complaint captioned Kim Johnson v. Liam Stewart, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-011062 (VSB) was filed in the same court on November 27, 2018. Each of the shareholder derivative complaints assert derivative claims on behalf of the Company against certain of its current and former officers and directors arising out of the same subject matter at issue in the City of Riviera Beach and Fajardo complaints discussed above. The causes of action asserted include violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. A motion to consolidate the three actions is currently pending. Proceedings in the Wright, Greenlee and Johnson cases are otherwise stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss the securities class actions described above. The Company expects that the named defendants will vigorously contest the claims asserted in the Wright, Greenlee and Johnson complaints.