XML 36 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.2.2
Commitments and Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies

18.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In the normal course of its business and as a result of the extensive governmental regulation of the solid waste and E&P waste industries, the Company is subject to various judicial and administrative proceedings involving Canadian regulatory authorities as well as U.S. federal, state and local agencies. In these proceedings, an agency may subpoena the

Company for records, or seek to impose fines on the Company or revoke or deny renewal of an authorization held by the Company, including an operating permit. From time to time, the Company may also be subject to actions brought by special interest or other groups, adjacent landowners or residents in connection with the permitting and licensing of landfills, transfer stations, and E&P waste treatment, recovery and disposal operations, or alleging environmental damage or violations of the permits and licenses pursuant to which the Company operates. The Company uses $1,000 as a threshold (up from the previously required threshold of $300) for disclosing environmental matters involving potential monetary sanctions.

In addition, the Company is a party to various claims and suits pending for alleged damages to persons and property, alleged violations of certain laws and alleged liabilities arising out of matters occurring during the normal operation of the Company’s business. Except as noted in the matters described below, as of September 30, 2022, there is no current proceeding or litigation involving the Company or its property that the Company believes could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Los Angeles County, California Landfill Expansion Litigation

A.Chiquita Canyon, LLC Lawsuit Against Los Angeles County

In October 2004, the Company’s subsidiary, Chiquita Canyon, LLC (“CCL”), then under prior ownership, filed an application (the “Application”) with the County of Los Angeles (the “County”) Department of Regional Planning (“DRP”) for a conditional use permit (the “CUP”) to authorize the continued operation and expansion of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill (the “Landfill”). The Landfill has operated since 1972, and as a regional landfill, accepted approximately two and a half million tons of materials for disposal and beneficial use in 2021.  The Application requested expansion of the existing waste footprint on CCL’s contiguous property, an increase in maximum elevation, creation of a new entrance and new support facilities, construction of a facility for the County or another third-party operator to host household hazardous waste collection events, designation of an area for mixed organics/composting, and other modifications.

After many years of reviews and delays, upon the recommendation of County staff, the County’s Regional Planning Commission (the “Commission”) approved the Application on April 19, 2017, but imposed operating conditions, fees and exactions that substantially reduce the historical landfill operations and represent a large increase in aggregate taxes and fees. CCL objected to many of the requirements imposed by the Commission.  Current estimates for new costs imposed on CCL under the CUP are in excess of $300,000.

CCL appealed the Commission’s decision to the County Board of Supervisors, but the appeal was not successful.  At a subsequent hearing, on July 25, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved the CUP.  On October 20, 2017, CCL filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles a verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint against the County and the County Board of Supervisors captioned Chiquita Canyon, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, No. BS171262 (Los Angeles Co. Super Ct.) (the “Complaint”).  The Complaint challenges the terms of the CUP in 13 counts generally alleging that the County violated multiple California and federal statutes and California and federal constitutional protections. CCL seeks the following relief: (a) an injunction and writ of mandate against certain of the CUP’s operational restrictions, taxes and fees, (b) a declaration that the challenged conditions are unconstitutional and in violation of state and federal statutes, (c) reimbursement for any such illegal fees paid under protest, (d) damages, (e) an award of just compensation for a taking, (f) attorney fees, and (g) all other appropriate legal and equitable relief.

Following extensive litigation in 2018 and 2019 on the permissible scope of CCL’s challenge, full briefing occurred, and oral argument was held on June 22, 2020 on six of CCL’s causes of action. The Superior Court issued its decision on July 2, 2020, granting CCL’s petition for writ of mandate in part and denying it in part. CCL prevailed with respect to 12 of the challenged conditions, many of which imposed new fees and exactions on the Landfill.  On October 11, 2022, CCL

and the County entered into a settlement agreement that requires Chiquita to file a CUP modification application with the County embodying the terms of the settlement agreement.  If the CUP modification application is approved by the County and certain other contingencies are satisfied, Chiquita will dismiss this lawsuit.  However, at this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter.

B.December 11, 2017 Notice of Violation Regarding Certain CUP Conditions.

The County, through its DRP, issued a Notice of Violation, dated December 11, 2017 (the “NOV”), alleging that CCL violated certain conditions of the CUP, including Condition 79(B)(6) of the CUP by failing to pay an $11,600 Bridge & Thoroughfare Fee (“B&T Fee”) that was purportedly due on July 25, 2017.  The alleged B&T fee was ostensibly to fund the construction of transportation infrastructure in the area of the Landfill.  At the time the NOV was issued, CCL had already contested the legality of the B&T fee in the October 20, 2017 Complaint filed against the County in Los Angeles County Superior Court, described above under paragraph A (the “CUP lawsuit”).

On January 12, 2018, CCL filed an appeal of the alleged violations in the NOV.  Subsequently, CCL filed additional legal arguments and exhibits contesting the NOV.  On March 6, 2018, a DRP employee designated as hearing officer sustained the NOV, including the $11,600 B&T fee, and imposed an administrative penalty in the amount of $83 and a noncompliance fee of $0.75. A written decision memorializing the hearing officer’s findings and order was issued on July 10, 2018.  On April 13, 2018, CCL filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus against the County seeking to overturn the decision sustaining the NOV, contending that the NOV and decision are not supported by the facts or law.  On July 17, 2018, the Court granted CCL leave to pay the $11,600 B&T fee and to amend its Complaint in the CUP lawsuit to reflect the payment under protest, allowing the challenge to the B&T fee under the Mitigation Fee Act to proceed in the CUP lawsuit.  CCL paid the B&T fee under protest on August 10, 2018, and also paid on that date the administrative penalty of $83 and a noncompliance fee of $0.75. The Court indicated that the NOV case would be coordinated with the CUP lawsuit.  On October 11, 2022, CCL and the County entered into a settlement agreement, described above under paragraph A.  If the CUP modification application is approved by the County and certain other contingencies are satisfied, Chiquita will dismiss this lawsuit.  However, at this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter.