This excerpt taken from the MWV 10-Q filed Nov 6, 2006.
This excerpt taken from the MWV 10-Q filed May 5, 2006.
This excerpt taken from the MWV 10-K filed Mar 16, 2005.
In 1998 and 1999, the EPA issued Notices of Violation to eight paper industry facilities, including Westvacos Luke, Maryland mill, alleging violation of the PSD regulations under the Clean Air Act. On August 28, 2000, an enforcement action in Federal District Court in Maryland was brought against Westvaco asserting violations in connection with capital projects at the mill carried out in the 1980s. The action alleges that Westvaco did not obtain PSD permits or install required pollution controls, and sought penalties of $27,500 per day for each claimed violation together with the installation of control equipment. MeadWestvaco strongly disagrees with the EPAs allegations of Clean Air Act violations by Westvaco and is vigorously defending this action. On April 23, 2001, the Court granted Westvacos Motion for Partial Dismissal and dismissed the EPAs claims for civil penalties under the major counts of the complaint. The Court held that these significant penalties were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Following initial discovery, and in response to Motions for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Westvaco, the government abandoned several of its claims for injunctive relief. Discovery is proceeding in connection with the claims still remaining, and a series of motions and evidentiary hearings on discrete issues are expected in 2005. No trial date has been set, but a trial is not expected to commence before early 2006. Based on information currently available, MeadWestvaco does not expect this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the companys consolidated financial condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however, it is possible such proceeding could have a material effect on the results of operations.
In June 1996, the EPA issued administrative orders under Section 106 of CERCLA to Mead and two other potentially responsible parties (PRPs), relating to remediation of certain property within the Chattanooga Creek (Tennessee) Superfund site, including land located near a former, closed Mead manufacturing facility. In 1997, Mead indicated its intent to not comply with the Section 106 order. In 2004, the company and other potentially responsible parties (PRPs) reached a settlement and signed a Consent Decree with the U.S. EPA concerning the Chattanooga Creek Superfund Site. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the private PRPs, including MeadWestvaco, will undertake final remediation action at the Chattanooga Creek Superfund Site, which is expected to begin in 2005. In addition, the PRPs, including MeadWestvaco, will reimburse the U.S. EPA for past costs incurred in connection with the site. This settlement resolves all the parties respective liabilities to the government with respect to the site. The Consent Decree is subject to public comment and must be approved by the federal district court before it takes effect. No objections are anticipated. MeadWestvaco does not expect this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the companys consolidated financial condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, it is possible such proceeding could have a material effect on the results of operations.
MeadWestvaco has established liabilities of approximately $34 million relating to the aforementioned and other environmental proceedings. Additional information is included in Part I, Item 1, Business - Environmental Laws and Regulations, and Note O to the consolidated financial statements included in the MeadWestvaco 2004 Annual Report to Shareholders incorporated herein by reference.
MeadWestvaco is involved in various other litigation and administrative proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate outcome of such matters cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not believe that the currently expected outcome of any proceeding, lawsuit or claim that is pending or threatened, or all of them combined, will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material effect on the results of operations.