Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Oct. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

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 October 31, 2020, these letters of credit and surety bonds totaled $153.1 million and $632.9 million, respectively.

Guarantees

In some instances, we offer clients guaranteed energy savings under certain energy savings contracts. At October 31, 2020 and 2019, total guarantees were $182.8 million and $174.8 million, respectively, and these guarantees extend through 2039 and 2038, respectively. 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 2024. Annual revenues relating to the underlying contracts are approximately $30 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.

Indemnifications

We are party to a variety of agreements under which we may be obligated to indemnify the other party for certain matters. These agreements are primarily standard indemnification arrangements entered into in our ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these arrangements, we may agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and reimburse the indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party, generally our clients, in connection with any claims arising out of the services that we provide. We also incur costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification arrangements, and in most cases these costs are paid from our insurance program. Although we attempt to place limits on such indemnification arrangements related to the size of the contract, the maximum obligation may not be explicitly stated and, as a result, we are unable to determine the maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these arrangements.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws may require us to indemnify our directors and officers for certain liabilities that were incurred as a result of their status or service to ABM as a director or officer. The amount of these obligations cannot be reasonably estimated.

Unclaimed Property Audits

We routinely remit escheat payments to states in compliance with applicable escheat laws, and we are subject to unclaimed property audits by states in the ordinary course of business. The property subject to review in the audit process may include unclaimed wages, vendor payments, or customer refunds. State escheat laws generally require entities to report and remit abandoned or unclaimed property to the state, and failure to do so can result in assessments that could include interest and penalties in addition to the payment of the escheat liability.

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 that 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 October 31, 2020, the total amount accrued for probable litigation losses where a reasonable estimate of the loss could be made was $14.7 million. 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 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. The amounts above do not include any accrual or loss estimates with respect to the Bucio case described 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.

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.

Certain Legal Proceedings

In determining whether to include any particular lawsuit or other proceeding in our disclosure below, 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, pending 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 (“PAGA”). 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.

On September 20, 2018, the trial court entered an order defining four certified subclasses of janitors who were employed by the legacy ABM janitorial companies in California at any time between April 7, 2002, and April 30, 2013, on claims based on alleged previous automatic deduction practices for meal breaks, unpaid meal premiums, unpaid split shift premiums, and unreimbursed business expenses, such as mileage reimbursement for use of personal vehicles to travel between worksites. On February 1, 2019, the trial court held that the discovery related to PAGA claims allegedly arising after April 30, 2013, would be stayed until after the class and PAGA claims accruing prior to April 30, 2013, had been tried. The parties engaged in mediation in July 2019, which did not result in settlement of the case. On October 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to certify additional classes based on an alleged failure to maintain time records, an alleged failure to provide accurate wage statements, and an alleged practice of combining meal and rest breaks. The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion

to certify additional classes on December 26, 2019. The case was re-assigned to a new judge on January 6, 2020. ABM filed motions for summary adjudication as to certain of Plaintiffs’ class claims, and the trial court denied those motions in November 2020. Plaintiffs filed motions for summary adjudication and/or summary judgment on some claims in December 2020, and a hearing on these motions is currently set for February 24, 2021. The trial court has ordered that the parties complete another mediation by February 19, 2021.

The parties are currently engaged in substantive briefing and will begin expert discovery. The class action claims accruing prior to April 30, 2013 are set for trial on July 12, 2021. Prior to trial, we will have the opportunity to, among other things, seek decertification of the classes, seek interlocutory appellate review, or engage in further mediation if we deem such actions appropriate. We may engage in one or more such activities before the trial.

While we believe we have valid defenses to the claims in this proceeding and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves, there can be no assurance that the final resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.