Two Texas Courts Rule Against WMI
The following are two news accounts of Waste Management losing an environmental case and being fined $240,000. The other case is a defamation suit WMI lost having lied to the citizenry to try to monopolize business in San Antonio.
LATEST NEWS
10:47 AM CDT Tuesday
Waste Management slapped with nearly $240,000 landfill fine
Mary Alice Kaspar
Austin Business Journal Staff
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?b82102615
A record fine has been levied against Waste Management Inc. for alleged environmental violations at the company's landfill in Northeast Travis County.
The Austin-based Texas Commission on Environmental Quality imposed a $239,370 fine against Houston-based Waste Management [NYSE: WMI]. Although the fine is far less than the initial proposed amount of $800,000, it is the largest against a landfill since state lawmakers gave the Commission on Environmental Quality the authority to issue fines in 1986, commission spokeswoman Adria Dawidczik says.
The average fine in the state's last fiscal year was $9,752, says Paul Sarahan, director of the commission's litigation division.
Waste Management agreed to pay the fine while still denying the commission's allegations.
The Commission on Environmental Quality is the state's environmental agency. Its responsibilities include permitting, licensing and registering landfills.
Many of the alleged violations involve unpleasant odors emitted from landfills in Northeast Austin. Nearby businesses and residents have complained about the odors for years.
Sarahan says Waste Management was able to negotiate a lower fine by showing Waste Management's level of emissions wasn't high enough to be classified in the "major source" category, and the company didn't financially benefit from the alleged violations by more than $15,000. The commission found Waste Management benefited by $13,000 from the alleged violations.
In a statement, Waste Management says that "we have recently completed paving part of the road on landfill property ... and are installing the wheel wash system, both of which should greatly reduce the likelihood of mud on Giles Road during wet weather. Also, we are adding additional groundwater monitoring wells/piezometers in the western 55 acres that have been requested by neighbors as part of our 1990 agreement with them."
Of the $239,370 fine, $119,685 will go toward surveying a three-mile area in Travis County for illegal dump sites and installing new water connections for the Northridge Acres subdivision.
Meanwhile, the Commission on Environmental Quality is in the process of assessing a fine against another Travis County landfill operator -- BFI, owned by Scottsdale, Arizona-based Allied Waste Industries Inc. BFI's proposed fine is tied to unpleasant landfill odors.
In April, the commission announced a $60,000 fine was being considered. Dawidczik says the amount is being negotiated.
In a previous statement, BFI said: "We have taken a very proactive approach to addressing any of the issues raised by TCEQ. In the past there have been some odor issues and we've taken responsibility for the issues on our site. In the last 18 months we have implemented a vast array of improvements to not only address the odor issue from 2001, but also to get 'ahead of the curve' in 2003."
Email MARY ALICE KASPAR at (makaspar@bizjournals.com).
Austin Business Journal - May 19, 2003
http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2003/05/19/story8.html
EXCLUSIVE REPORTS
Waste companies claim wins in defamation dispute
Mary Alice Kaspar
Austin Business Journal Staff
After nearly six years of legal wrangling and millions of dollars in legal fees, a Travis County jury found a giant in the waste industry knowingly spread false information about one of its Austin competitors. However, the giant was spared from financial damages.
In October 1997, Austin-based Texas Disposal Systems Landfill Inc. filed a lawsuit against Houston-based rival Waste Management Inc. [NYSE: WMI].
The dispute centered on Waste Management's alleged attempts to defame Texas Disposal Systems and monopolize the waste disposal market in Central Texas. Texas Disposal Systems and Waste Management operate landfills in the Austin area, and both companies do business with the cities of Austin and San Antonio.The verdict, issued May 7, has both sides claiming victory and vindication.
"While the defendant's legal team was successful in defending against an award of damages, even they could not present an argument sufficient to keep their client, WMI, from being proven to have lied," says Bob Gregory, chairman, CEO and co-owner of Texas Disposal Systems.
Chip Babcock, Waste Management's attorney, says: "At the end of the day, no one can take this verdict and say, 'If you criticize my landfill, I can get a lot of money.'"
Babcock is a partner with the Dallas and Houston offices of law firm Jackson Walker LLP.
Specifically, Texas Disposal Systems' suit accused Waste Management of defamation, tortious interference with a contract, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, business disparagement and the attempt to monopolize.
Some of the allegations were thrown out in pretrial hearings, leaving jurors to decide whether Waste Management knowingly distributed false information and acted with malice. The jury also had the chance to finanacially penalize Waste Management.
While the jury found Waste Management knowingly distributed false information, it didn't find Waste Management acted with malice. Legally, malice is defined as a specific intent to cause substantial injury.
Also, the jury didn't award Texas Disposal System any monetary damages in connection with the false information.
Much of Texas Disposal Systems' case centered on an "Action Alert" fax sent Jan. 30, 1997, by local environmental activist George Cofer, according to court documents. Waste Management representatives provided content for the alert, which was sent to local environmental activists.
The alert was issued as Texas Disposal Systems was negotiating a contract with the City of San Antonio. The company claims the alert was intended to provoke "reconsideration of the San Antonio City Council's vote to award" a 30-year contract to Texas Disposal Systems by emphasizing that company's allegedly questionable business practices.
The alert provided contact information for San Antonio's City Council members and public works director and urges readers to contact the San Antonio Express-News and Travis County officials "to let them know of your environmental and traffic concerns."
Jury foreman Dave Zinni of Pflugerville says: "We felt that Waste Management knew exactly what it was saying and hired some very competent people. We felt that they [Waste Management] crossed the line."
At the same time, he says, the information was disseminated in the spirit of competition -- and not necessarily to damage Texas Disposal Systems.
Financial damages weren't awarded because jurors didn't want to hamper companies in providing information related to public controversies, Zinni says.
Babcock says the verdict protects free speech rights.
"At the end of the trial, particularly after talking to the jury, I felt that the jury got it about free speech. They got to the goal line," Babcock says.
"They understood what was at stake and how important it was. And they understood the implications of a money damage award on important speech, speech on a matter of important public concern."
Babcock also says damages weren't assessed because the information distributed by Waste Management "had not harmed the plaintiff in any way."
Texas Disposal Systems' Gregory says his company has "worked diligently ... to repair the damage done to its reputation."
"We at TDS believe in free speech and public debate, and we agree that it should be unacceptable to lie with or without the specific intent to damage another party," Gregory says. "The jury's decision to not punish WMI monetarily could encourage WMI to continue their past pattern of conduct."
Gregory says his company will determine within a month whether it will appeal the verdict.
Babcock says millions of dollars in legal fees were spent prosecuting and defending the case.
"That's an expensive vindication for TDS," says Richard Lowerre, an Austin attorney familiar with lawsuits in the waste industry.
"Waste Management has been accused, as well as other waste companies, of these kinds [of allegations] in the past," Lowerre says. "Very few have the resources to take them to court. It's good that someone did."
Lowerre says the industry is dominated by two large players: Waste Management and BFI, owned by Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Allied Waste Industries Inc.
The large players "can bring the kind of pressure to make a competitor want to sell out. In this case, if that was their intent, ... you had a competitor who was willing to say not only no, but hell no," Lowerre says. "And that's good for the business."
Texas Disposal Systems operates a 341-acre landfill on 927 acres southeast of Austin. It hauls 663,800 tons of solid waste each year.
Waste Management operates 293 landfills in North America, including one in East Austin. Revenue for fiscal 2002 was $11.1 billion.
Email MARY ALICE KASPAR at (makaspar@bizjournals.com).
Austin Business Journal - May 19, 2003
http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2003/05/19/story8.html
EXCLUSIVE REPORTS
Waste companies claim wins in defamation dispute
Mary Alice Kaspar
Austin Business Journal Staff
After nearly six years of legal wrangling and millions of dollars in legal fees, a Travis County jury found a giant in the waste industry knowingly spread false information about one of its Austin competitors. However, the giant was spared from financial damages.
In October 1997, Austin-based Texas Disposal Systems Landfill Inc. filed a lawsuit against Houston-based rival Waste Management Inc. [NYSE: WMI].
The dispute centered on Waste Management's alleged attempts to defame Texas Disposal Systems and monopolize the waste disposal market in Central Texas. Texas Disposal Systems and Waste Management operate landfills in the Austin area, and both companies do business with the cities of Austin and San Antonio.The verdict, issued May 7, has both sides claiming victory and vindication.
"While the defendant's legal team was successful in defending against an award of damages, even they could not present an argument sufficient to keep their client, WMI, from being proven to have lied," says Bob Gregory, chairman, CEO and co-owner of Texas Disposal Systems.
Chip Babcock, Waste Management's attorney, says: "At the end of the day, no one can take this verdict and say, 'If you criticize my landfill, I can get a lot of money.'"
Babcock is a partner with the Dallas and Houston offices of law firm Jackson Walker LLP.
Specifically, Texas Disposal Systems' suit accused Waste Management of defamation, tortious interference with a contract, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, business disparagement and the attempt to monopolize.
Some of the allegations were thrown out in pretrial hearings, leaving jurors to decide whether Waste Management knowingly distributed false information and acted with malice. The jury also had the chance to finanacially penalize Waste Management.
While the jury found Waste Management knowingly distributed false information, it didn't find Waste Management acted with malice. Legally, malice is defined as a specific intent to cause substantial injury.
Also, the jury didn't award Texas Disposal System any monetary damages in connection with the false information.
Much of Texas Disposal Systems' case centered on an "Action Alert" fax sent Jan. 30, 1997, by local environmental activist George Cofer, according to court documents. Waste Management representatives provided content for the alert, which was sent to local environmental activists.
The alert was issued as Texas Disposal Systems was negotiating a contract with the City of San Antonio. The company claims the alert was intended to provoke "reconsideration of the San Antonio City Council's vote to award" a 30-year contract to Texas Disposal Systems by emphasizing that company's allegedly questionable business practices.
The alert provided contact information for San Antonio's City Council members and public works director and urges readers to contact the San Antonio Express-News and Travis County officials "to let them know of your environmental and traffic concerns."
Jury foreman Dave Zinni of Pflugerville says: "We felt that Waste Management knew exactly what it was saying and hired some very competent people. We felt that they [Waste Management] crossed the line."
At the same time, he says, the information was disseminated in the spirit of competition -- and not necessarily to damage Texas Disposal Systems.
Financial damages weren't awarded because jurors didn't want to hamper companies in providing information related to public controversies, Zinni says.
Babcock says the verdict protects free speech rights.
"At the end of the trial, particularly after talking to the jury, I felt that the jury got it about free speech. They got to the goal line," Babcock says.
"They understood what was at stake and how important it was. And they understood the implications of a money damage award on important speech, speech on a matter of important public concern."
Babcock also says damages weren't assessed because the information distributed by Waste Management "had not harmed the plaintiff in any way."
Texas Disposal Systems' Gregory says his company has "worked diligently ... to repair the damage done to its reputation."
"We at TDS believe in free speech and public debate, and we agree that it should be unacceptable to lie with or without the specific intent to damage another party," Gregory says. "The jury's decision to not punish WMI monetarily could encourage WMI to continue their past pattern of conduct."
Gregory says his company will determine within a month whether it will appeal the verdict.
Babcock says millions of dollars in legal fees were spent prosecuting and defending the case.
"That's an expensive vindication for TDS," says Richard Lowerre, an Austin attorney familiar with lawsuits in the waste industry.
"Waste Management has been accused, as well as other waste companies, of these kinds [of allegations] in the past," Lowerre says. "Very few have the resources to take them to court. It's good that someone did."
Lowerre says the industry is dominated by two large players: Waste Management and BFI, owned by Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Allied Waste Industries Inc.
The large players "can bring the kind of pressure to make a competitor want to sell out. In this case, if that was their intent, ... you had a competitor who was willing to say not only no, but hell no," Lowerre says. "And that's good for the business."
Texas Disposal Systems operates a 341-acre landfill on 927 acres southeast of Austin. It hauls 663,800 tons of solid waste each year.
Waste Management operates 293 landfills in North America, including one in East Austin. Revenue for fiscal 2002 was $11.1 billion.
Email MARY ALICE KASPAR at (makaspar@bizjournals.com).
Return to Home Page