1.0.0.3 false Commitments and Contingencies false 1 $ false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 USDPerShare Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 2 NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 0 wlt_NotesToConsolidatedFinancialsAbstract wlt false na duration string No definition available. false false false false false true false false false 1 false false 0 0 false false No definition available. false 3 Commitments and Contingencies 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration string No definition available. false false false false false false false false false 1 false false 0 0 <table style="font-size:10pt; font-family:'Times New Roman',times,serif;"> <tr> <td> Note 10Commitments and Contingencies <ul> <li style="list-style: none"> Income Tax Litigation</li></ul>         The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") has completed its audits of the Company's federal income tax returns for the years ended May 31, 2000 through December 31, 2005. The unresolved issues relate primarily to the Company's method of recognizing revenue on the sale of homes and related interest on the instalment notes receivable. The items at issue relate primarily to the timing of revenue recognition and consequently, should the IRS prevail on its positions, the Company's financial exposure is limited to interest and penalties.         On December 27, 1989, the Company and most of its subsidiaries each filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Proceedings") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (the "Bankruptcy Court"). The Company emerged from bankruptcy on March 17, 1995 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization dated as of December 9, 1994, as modified on March 1, 1995 (as so modified the "Consensual Plan"). Despite the confirmation and effectiveness of the Consensual Plan, the Bankruptcy Court continues to have jurisdiction over, among other things, the resolution of disputed prepetition claims against the Company and other matters that may arise in connection with or related to the Consensual Plan, including claims related to Federal income taxes.         A controversy exists with regard to Federal income taxes allegedly owed by the Company for fiscal years 1980 through 1994. In connection with the bankruptcy proceedings, the IRS filed a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court (the "Proof of Claim") for a substantial amount of taxes, interest and penalties with respect to fiscal years ended August 31, 1980 and August 31, 1983 through May 31, 1994. The Company filed an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court disputing the Proof of Claim (the "Adversary Proceeding") and the various issues have been and are being litigated in the Bankruptcy Court. The amounts initially asserted by the Proof of Claim do not reflect the subsequent resolution of various issues through settlements or concessions by the parties. After adjustment for these items, the Company estimates that the amount of tax presently claimed by the IRS is approximately $34.0 million for issues currently in dispute in the Adversary Proceeding. This amount is subject to interest and penalties. Of the $34.0 million in claimed tax, $21.0 million represents issues in which the IRS is not challenging the deductibility of the particular expense but only whether such expense is deductible in a particular year. Consequently, the Company believes that, should the IRS prevail on any such issues, the Company's financial exposure is limited to interest and possible penalties and the amount of tax claimed will be offset by deductions in other years. Substantially all of the issues in the Proof of Claim, which have not been settled or conceded, have been litigated before the Bankruptcy Court and are subject to appeal but only at the conclusion of the entire Adversary Proceeding.         The Company believes that those portions of the Proof of Claim which remain in dispute or are subject to appeal substantially overstate the amount of taxes allegedly owing. However, because of the complexity of the issues presented and the uncertainties associated with litigation, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the Adversary Proceeding.         The Company believes that all of its current and prior tax filing positions have substantial merit and intends to defend vigorously any tax claims asserted. The Company believes that it has sufficient accruals to address any claims, including interest and penalties. <ul> <li style="list-style: none"> Environmental Matters</li></ul>         The Company is subject to a wide variety of laws and regulations concerning the protection of the environment, both with respect to the construction and operation of its plants, mines and other facilities and with respect to remediating environmental conditions that may exist at its own and other properties.         The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. The Company accrues for environmental expenses resulting from existing conditions that relate to past operations when the costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated.         Walter Coke entered into a decree order in 1989 relative to a Resource Conservation Recovery Act ("RCRA") compliance program mandated by the EPA. A RCRA Facility Investigation ("RFI") Work Plan was prepared which proposed investigative tasks to assess the presence of contamination at the Walter Coke facility. The Work Plan was approved in 1994 and the Phase I investigations were conducted and completed between 1995 and 1999. Phase II investigations for the Chemical Plant/Coke Plant and Biological Treatment Facility and Sewers/Land Disposal Areas were performed in 2000 and 2001 and are complete. At the end of 2004, the EPA re-directed Walter Coke's RFI efforts toward completion of the Environmental Indicator ("EI") determinations for the Current Human Exposures. This EI effort was completed to assist the EPA in meeting goals set by the Government Performance Results Act ("GPRA") for RCRA by 2005. Walter Coke implemented the approved EI Sampling Plan in April 2005. The EPA approved/finalized the EI determinations for Walter Coke's Birmingham facility in September 2005. In an effort to refocus the RFI, the EPA approved technical comments on the Phase II RFI report and the report submitted as part of the EI effort. A Phase III work plan was submitted to the EPA during the first quarter of 2007. The EPA commented on the Phase III plan and Walter Coke has responded. Subsequently, a meeting was held with the EPA during the third quarter of 2007 with the objective of finalization of the Phase III Plan. However, additional requests by EPA expanded the scope of the project which required additional sampling and testing.         The Company has incurred costs to investigate the presence of contamination at the Walter Coke site and to define remediation actions to address this environmental liability in accordance with the agreements reached with the EPA per the findings in the Phase I and Phase II investigations. In conjunction with the Phase III work plan, the Company continues to incur costs related to defining remediation efforts and establishing a plan for remediation. The Phase III final report was submitted in March 2009 and the Company is awaiting comments from the EPA. At September 30, 2009, the Company has accrued an amount that is probable and can be reasonably estimated for the costs to be incurred to identify necessary remediation actions and establish a remediation plan. The amount of this accrual was not material to the financial statements. While it is probable that the Company will incur additional future costs to remediate environmental liabilities, the amount of these costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Although no assurances can be given that the Company will not be required in the future to make material expenditures relating to the Walter Coke site or other sites, management does not believe at this time that the cleanup costs, if any, associated with these sites will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Company, but such cleanup costs could be material to results of operations in a future reporting period. <ul> <li style="list-style: none"> Miscellaneous Litigation</li></ul>         The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of other lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of their businesses. The Company records costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The effect of the outcome of these matters on the Company's future results of operations cannot be predicted with certainty as any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. While the results of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that the final outcome of such other litigation will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements. <ul> <li style="list-style: none"> Commitments and ContingenciesOther</li></ul>         In the opinion of management, accruals associated with contingencies incurred in the normal course of business are sufficient. Resolution of existing known contingencies is not expected to significantly affect the Company's financial position and result of operations.</td></tr></table> Note 10Commitments and Contingencies Income Tax Litigation         The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") false false No definition available. No authoritative reference available. false false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true