Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2012
Contingencies	10. Contingencies The Company is subject to legal proceedings, settlements, class actions, and purported class actions arising from the ordinary course of business, generally including employment-based claims and customer contract claims. Litigation outcomes are difficult to predict and are often resolved over long periods of time. Estimating probable losses requires the analysis of multiple possible outcomes that often depend on judgments about potential actions by third parties. In accordance with FASB Accounting Standards Codification 450-20, Loss Contingencies, the Company accrues for loss contingencies when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. If the reasonable estimate of the loss is a range and no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is recorded as a liability. Legal costs associated with loss contingencies are expensed as incurred. At July 31, 2012, the total amount accrued for all probable litigation losses where a reasonable estimate of the loss could be made was $6.9 million. The Company does not accrue for contingent losses that, in the judgment of the Company, are considered to be reasonably possible but not probable. Management currently estimates that the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses for which an estimate can be made is between $0 and $92.3 million, including $89.7 million related to the “Augustus case” noted below. Factors underlying this estimate will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate. Those matters for which the Company cannot reasonably estimate potential losses are not included within this estimated range and, therefore, this range does not represent the Company’s maximum potential loss exposure. The ultimate resolution of such matters is always uncertain, and any such proceeding brought against the Company could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operations. There have been no significant changes to the cases disclosed in Note 11 in the Company’s Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2011, except as described below. The Company is a defendant in the previously reported consolidated cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services filed on July 12, 2005 in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the “Augustus case”). The Augustus case is a class action involving allegations that the Company violated certain state laws relating to meal and rest breaks. As previously disclosed, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the rest break claim seeking damages in the amount of $103.0 million. On July 6, 2012, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the “Superior Court”) heard plaintiffs’ motion for damages on the rest break claim and the Company’s motion to decertify the class. The Superior Court denied the Company’s motion and awarded plaintiffs damages. On July 31, 2012, the Superior Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $89.7 million, which is included in the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses noted above. This amount does not include plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees. The Company strongly disagrees with the decisions of the Superior Court, firmly believes that it has complied with applicable law, and intends to vigorously appeal these decisions. The Company was a defendant in the previously reported consolidated cases of Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System Parking filed on December 5, 2006 in Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Superior Court”). On June 22, 2011, the parties accepted a mediator’s proposal which involves settling all the claims made in the first amended complaint for the period of October 1, 2002 to the date on which the Superior Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement. The Superior Court granted its preliminary approval of the settlement on December 13, 2011. On January 27, 2012, the notice to the class of the settlement was mailed. The Superior Court approved the final settlement on May 21, 2012. Settlement funds totaling approximately $3.2 million, including payments to plaintiff’s attorneys, were disbursed in late May 2012. The Company is a defendant in the previously reported case of Khadera v. American Building Maintenance Co.- West and ABM Industries filed on March 24, 2008 in the U.S. District Court of Washington, Western District (the “Khadera case”). The Khadera case is a collective action and involves allegations relating to unpaid overtime and meal and rest claims. It is an opt-in class under the Fair Labor Standards Act and 343 plaintiffs are in the class. On March 14, 2012, the parties accepted a mediator’s proposal and settled this matter for $1.8 million, which includes payments to plaintiffs’ attorneys. The settlement is subject to the District Court’s approval of the settlement and the state court’s approval of the settlement in the companion Simpson case discussed below. The Company has accrued $1.8 million with respect to this matter, which is included in the total amount accrued for all litigation matters described above. The Company is a defendant in the previously reported case of Simpson v. ABM Janitorial Services-Northwest and ABM Industries Incorporated filed on September 24, 2010 in the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for King County (the “Simpson case”). The Simpson case involves allegations relating to unpaid overtime, off-the-clock work, and failure to provide meal and rest periods under Washington state law. On March 14, 2012, the parties accepted a mediator’s proposal and settled this matter for $1.2 million, which includes payments to plaintiffs’ attorneys. The settlement is subject to the State Court’s approval of the settlement and the District Court’s approval of the settlement in the Khadera companion case. The Company has accrued $1.2 million with respect to this matter, which is included in the total amount accrued for all litigation matters described above. The Company is a defendant in the case of Las and Yanez v. ABM Industries Incorporated, et al. filed on April 6, 2011 in Illinois state court and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Las/Yanez case”). The Las/Yanez case involves allegations relating to unpaid overtime and off-the-clock work under federal and state law. It was filed as a collective action, but has not been certified as a class action or collective action. On May 4, 2012, the parties accepted a mediator’s proposal, which involves settling all the claims made in the operative complaint for the period of April 6, 2008 through May 7, 2012, subject to court approval. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the gross settlement value (“GSV”) is the total agreed-upon value of the claims of all settlement class members in the Las/Yanez case assuming that 100% of the settlement class members were to submit a claim. The parties have agreed that the GSV is equal to $5.5 million, less certain costs and payments to the named plaintiffs in this action. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, in the event that more than 30% of the settlement class, measured by the aggregate value of their claims in relation to the GSV, submits claims, the Company has the option to terminate the settlement agreement. The Company currently anticipates that payments to members of the settlement class who properly submit claims, together with payments to plaintiffs’ attorneys, will total approximately $2.1 million and that the Company’s maximum exposure would be approximately $2.9 million. The Company has accrued $2.1 million with respect to this matter, which is included in the total amount accrued for all litigation matters described above. The Company is a defendant in the case of Bojorquez v. ABM Industries Incorporated and ABM Janitorial Services – Northern California, Inc. filed on January 13, 2010, in the San Francisco Superior Court (the “Superior Court”). Plaintiff brought suit for sexual harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment and discrimination. On May 17, 2012, a jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $0.8 million in damages. The Company anticipates that the plaintiff also will file an application for attorneys’ fees and costs with the Superior Court. The Company intends to appeal this decision. Other During October 2011, the Company began an internal investigation into matters relating to compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Company’s internal policies in connection with services provided by a foreign entity affiliated with a former Linc joint venture partner. Such services commenced prior to the Linc Acquisition. As a result of the investigation, the Company has caused Linc to terminate its association with the arrangement. In December 2011, the Company contacted the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to voluntarily disclose the results of its internal investigation to date. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, related to these matters. However, based on the facts currently known, the Company does not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. There have been no significant changes to the status of this internal investigation during the quarter ended July 31, 2012. In June 2012, the Company settled certain matters arising under a contract related to a prior divestiture and, in connection therewith, made a payment of $1.8 million to the other party to the contract primarily in exchange for a release from certain restrictive covenants.

10. Contingencies

The Company is subject to legal proceedings, settlements, class actions, and purported class actions arising from the ordinary course of business, generally including employment-based claims and customer contract claims. Litigation outcomes are difficult to predict and are often resolved over long periods of time. Estimating probable losses requires the analysis of multiple possible outcomes that often depend on judgments about potential actions by third parties. In accordance with FASB Accounting Standards Codification 450-20, Loss Contingencies, the Company accrues for loss contingencies when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. If the reasonable estimate of the loss is a range and no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is recorded as a liability. Legal costs associated with loss contingencies are expensed as incurred. At July 31, 2012, the total amount accrued for all probable litigation losses where a reasonable estimate of the loss could be made was $6.9 million.

The Company does not accrue for contingent losses that, in the judgment of the Company, are considered to be reasonably possible but not probable. Management currently estimates that the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses for which an estimate can be made is between $0 and $92.3 million, including $89.7 million related to the “Augustus case” noted below. Factors underlying this estimate will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate. Those matters for which the Company cannot reasonably estimate potential losses are not included within this estimated range and, therefore, this range does not represent the Company’s maximum potential loss exposure. The ultimate resolution of such matters is always uncertain, and any such proceeding brought against the Company could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operations.

There have been no significant changes to the cases disclosed in Note 11 in the Company’s Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2011, except as described below.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported consolidated cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services filed on July 12, 2005 in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the “Augustus case”). The Augustus case is a class action involving allegations that the Company violated certain state laws relating to meal and rest breaks. As previously disclosed, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the rest break claim seeking damages in the amount of $103.0 million. On July 6, 2012, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the “Superior Court”) heard plaintiffs’ motion for damages on the rest break claim and the Company’s motion to decertify the class. The Superior Court denied the Company’s motion and awarded plaintiffs damages. On July 31, 2012, the Superior Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $89.7 million, which is included in the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses noted above. This amount does not include plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees. The Company strongly disagrees with the decisions of the Superior Court, firmly believes that it has complied with applicable law, and intends to vigorously appeal these decisions.

The Company was a defendant in the previously reported consolidated cases of Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System Parking filed on December 5, 2006 in Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Superior Court”). On June 22, 2011, the parties accepted a mediator’s proposal which involves settling all the claims made in the first amended complaint for the period of October 1, 2002 to the date on which the Superior Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement. The Superior Court granted its preliminary approval of the settlement on December 13, 2011. On January 27, 2012, the notice to the class of the settlement was mailed. The Superior Court approved the final settlement on May 21, 2012. Settlement funds totaling approximately $3.2 million, including payments to plaintiff’s attorneys, were disbursed in late May 2012.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported case of Khadera v. American Building Maintenance Co.- West and ABM Industries filed on March 24, 2008 in the U.S. District Court of Washington, Western District (the “Khadera case”). The Khadera case is a collective action and involves allegations relating to unpaid overtime and meal and rest claims. It is an opt-in class under the Fair Labor Standards Act and 343 plaintiffs are in the class. On March 14, 2012, the parties accepted a mediator’s proposal and settled this matter for $1.8 million, which includes payments to plaintiffs’ attorneys. The settlement is subject to the District Court’s approval of the settlement and the state court’s approval of the settlement in the companion Simpson case discussed below. The Company has accrued $1.8 million with respect to this matter, which is included in the total amount accrued for all litigation matters described above.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported case of Simpson v. ABM Janitorial Services-Northwest and ABM Industries Incorporated filed on September 24, 2010 in the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for King County (the “Simpson case”). The Simpson case involves allegations relating to unpaid overtime, off-the-clock work, and failure to provide meal and rest periods under Washington state law. On March 14, 2012, the parties accepted a mediator’s proposal and settled this matter for $1.2 million, which includes payments to plaintiffs’ attorneys. The settlement is subject to the State Court’s approval of the settlement and the District Court’s approval of the settlement in the Khadera companion case. The Company has accrued $1.2 million with respect to this matter, which is included in the total amount accrued for all litigation matters described above.

The Company is a defendant in the case of Las and Yanez v. ABM Industries Incorporated, et al. filed on April 6, 2011 in Illinois state court and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Las/Yanez case”). The Las/Yanez case involves allegations relating to unpaid overtime and off-the-clock work under federal and state law. It was filed as a collective action, but has not been certified as a class action or collective action. On May 4, 2012, the parties accepted a mediator’s proposal, which involves settling all the claims made in the operative complaint for the period of April 6, 2008 through May 7, 2012, subject to court approval. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the gross settlement value (“GSV”) is the total agreed-upon value of the claims of all settlement class members in the Las/Yanez case assuming that 100% of the settlement class members were to submit a claim. The parties have agreed that the GSV is equal to $5.5 million, less certain costs and payments to the named plaintiffs in this action. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, in the event that more than 30% of the settlement class, measured by the aggregate value of their claims in relation to the GSV, submits claims, the Company has the option to terminate the settlement agreement. The Company currently anticipates that payments to members of the settlement class who properly submit claims, together with payments to plaintiffs’ attorneys, will total approximately $2.1 million and that the Company’s maximum exposure would be approximately $2.9 million. The Company has accrued $2.1 million with respect to this matter, which is included in the total amount accrued for all litigation matters described above.

The Company is a defendant in the case of Bojorquez v. ABM Industries Incorporated and ABM Janitorial Services – Northern California, Inc. filed on January 13, 2010, in the San Francisco Superior Court (the “Superior Court”). Plaintiff brought suit for sexual harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment and discrimination. On May 17, 2012, a jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $0.8 million in damages. The Company anticipates that the plaintiff also will file an application for attorneys’ fees and costs with the Superior Court. The Company intends to appeal this decision.

Other

During October 2011, the Company began an internal investigation into matters relating to compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Company’s internal policies in connection with services provided by a foreign entity affiliated with a former Linc joint venture partner. Such services commenced prior to the Linc Acquisition. As a result of the investigation, the Company has caused Linc to terminate its association with the arrangement. In December 2011, the Company contacted the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to voluntarily disclose the results of its internal investigation to date. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, related to these matters. However, based on the facts currently known, the Company does not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. There have been no significant changes to the status of this internal investigation during the quarter ended July 31, 2012.

In June 2012, the Company settled certain matters arising under a contract related to a prior divestiture and, in connection therewith, made a payment of $1.8 million to the other party to the contract primarily in exchange for a release from certain restrictive covenants.