|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Allied Waste Industries is the second largest solid waste and recycling company in the United States. The Company serves more than ten million customers through a network of 313 collection companies, 165 transfer stations, 166 active landfills and 57 recycling facilities. AW (Common Stock) Exchange NYSE (US Dollar) Price $12.52 Change (%) Stock is Down 0.16 (1.26%) Volume 1,892,500 Data as of 12/01/06 4:00 p.m. ET |
That's the pleasant stuff. We also learned some unpleasant facts about Allied Waste as well, such as securities fraud, price fixing, and federal antitrust suits filed in Florida and Arizona. Dozens of class actions have been filed against Allied Waste Industries, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between February 10, 2004, and July 27, 2004. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. |
Allied Waste, has shown repeatedly that it does not possess the capability to manage or properly design so much as a bird bath, let alone be expected to design and successfully execute the implementation of such a massive undertaking. So why then, one must ask, do so many people stand behind this company and otherwise support and recommend the creation of a possible contamination hazard in our own backyard? The answer lies at the bottom of mankind's black heart... national garbage collection and transportation rates are soaring at over 100 dollars per ton, and no incentive for reform exists with profit margins of such magnitude
|
|
|
On April 27, 2004, Allied Waste reported its financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2004. Accompanying this report was the statement, "We are pleased with the solid internal growth that we experienced during the first quarter through the combination of consistent volume increases in positive pricing…. the combination of our operating leverage in an improving economy and the financial leverage through our debt reduction strategy continues to provide a clear path for value creation for the owners of our business." In fact, the lawsuits allege that the defendants’ statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose the following, that: (1) the company's internal growth was lagging due to poor management execution and the loss of a large contract; (2) the defendants had failed to successfully implement the company's "best practices" initiatives because Allied Waste lacked adequate internal controls; (3) the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that much-anticipated cyclical volume pickup of trash was not materializing. |
On July 27, 2004, Allied Waste reported its financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2004. Among other things, this report stated that, "However, contrary to our original expectations for 2004, the implementation of these [best practices] programs is costing more and we are not yet experiencing the economic driven improvement in our business. As a result, we are reducing our original expectation for our 2004 operating income before depreciation and amortization of $1.6 billion by three to four percent."
Following this announcement, J.P. Morgan cut Allied waste stock to "neutral" from "overweight." This news shocked the market, company shares falling $2.55 per share, or 20.83%, owned unusually high trading volume, to close at $9.69 per share. This was Allied Waste's biggest drop in five years.
In addition, The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on June 21, 2000, seeking to enjoin an exchange of certain waste-hauling and disposal assets by Allied Waste Industries, Inc. ("Allied") and Republic Services, Inc. ("Republic"). Allied and Republic had entered into purchase agreements pursuant to which the companies would exchange assets in a number of market areas in the United States. The Complaint alleges that the likely effects of these asset exchanges would be to substantially lessen competition for waste collection and disposal services in several markets in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. This loss of competition would result in consumers paying higher prices and receiving fewer services for the collection and disposal of waste.
May 24, 2005 Browning Ferris, owned by Allied, Pays $250,000 for Waste Violations
November 4, 2004 Greenridge Waste Services, owned by Allied Waste Services $41,250 penalty.
April 9, 2005 Greenridge Waste Services, owned by Allied, multiple problems. Fined $205,000.
December 23, 2005 Greenridge Reclamation Landfill, owned by Allied Waste Industries, Inc fined $9,000/day for odor violations .
September 18, 2004 East Huntington Township Landfill, owned by Allied Waste Industries, fined $205,000 for persistent odors.
December 10, 2004 BFI Conestoga Landfill, owned by New Morgan Landfill Company, a subsidiary of Allied Waste Industries, fined $142,500 for 19 alleged odor violations.
November 3, 2003 Croton-on-Hudson Metro Enviro Transfer, a wholly owned subsidiary of Allied Waste North America, Inc. repeated, deliberate and substantial violations.
June 14, 2004 Oakland Heights Development, Inc., a subsidiary of Allied Waste Industries, Inc. fined $24,000 to resolve alleged violations of landfill.
December 23, 2003 Allied Waste Systems, Inc, Sunset Waste Services $6,500 to resolve alleged violations at solid waste transfer station.
October 21, 2001 Allied Waste Systems, Inc. Action by State of New York to Recover Cost of Remediation of Towns Former Landfill
February 23, 2006 Allied Waste anti trust settlement.
|
|
Story and Data Provided By: EJNET.ORG
Graphics by Art
for the web