e10vk
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
January 2,
2011
|
OR
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the transition period
from to
|
Commission file number: 1-14260
The GEO Group, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Florida
|
|
65-0043078
|
(State or other jurisdiction
of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
One Park Place, Suite 700,
621 Northwest 53rd Street
Boca Raton, Florida
(Address of principal
executive offices)
|
|
33487-8242
(Zip
Code)
|
Registrants
telephone number (including area code):
(561) 893-0101
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
Common Stock, $0.01 Par Value
|
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
Indicate by a check mark whether the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes þ No o
Indicate by a check mark if the registrant is not required to
file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d)
of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by a check mark whether the registrant (1) has
filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has
been subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any,
every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of
Regulation S-T
(§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to submit and post such
files). Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
(§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein,
and will not be contained, to the best of the registrants
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated
filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of
large accelerated filer, accelerated
filer and smaller reporting company in Rule
12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
Large
accelerated
filer þ
|
Accelerated
filer o
|
Non-accelerated
filer o
|
Smaller
reporting
company o
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of the 47,864,477 voting and
non-voting shares of common stock held by non-affiliates of the
registrant as of July 2, 2010 (based on the last reported
sales price of such stock on the New York Stock Exchange on such
date of $20.69 per share) was approximately $990,316,029.
As of February 24, 2011, the registrant had
64,441,459 shares of common stock outstanding.
Certain portions of the registrants annual report to
security holders for fiscal year ended January 2, 2011 are
incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.
Certain portions of the registrants definitive proxy
statement pursuant to Regulation 14A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 for its 2011 annual meeting of shareholders
are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.
PART I
As used in this report, the terms we,
us, our, GEO and the
Company refer to The GEO Group, Inc., its
consolidated subsidiaries and its unconsolidated affiliates,
unless otherwise expressly stated or the context otherwise
requires.
General
We are a leading provider of government-outsourced services
specializing in the management of correctional, detention,
mental health, residential treatment and re-entry facilities,
and the provision of community based services and youth services
in the United States, Australia, South Africa, the
United Kingdom and Canada. We operate a broad range of
correctional and detention facilities including maximum, medium
and minimum security prisons, immigration detention centers,
minimum security detention centers, mental health, residential
treatment and community based re-entry facilities. We offer
counseling, education
and/or
treatment to inmates with alcohol and drug abuse problems at
most of the domestic facilities we manage. We develop new
facilities based on contract awards, using our project
development expertise and experience to design, construct and
finance what we believe are
state-of-the-art
facilities that maximize security and efficiency. We also
provide secure transportation services for offender and detainee
populations as contracted.
Our acquisition of Cornell Companies, Inc., which we refer to as
Cornell and we refer to this transaction as the Cornell
Acquisition, in August 2010 added scale to our presence in the
U.S. correctional and detention market, and combined
Cornells adult community-based and youth treatment
services into GEO Cares behavioral healthcare services
platform to create a leadership position in this growing market.
As of January 2, 2011, our worldwide operations included
the management
and/or
ownership of approximately 81,000 beds at 118 correctional,
detention and residential treatment facilities, including
projects under development. On December 21, 2010, we
entered into a Merger Agreement to acquire BII Holding
Corporation, which we refer to as BII Holding and we refer to
this transaction as the BI Acquisition. On February 10,
2011, we completed our acquisition of BII Holding, the indirect
owner of 100% of the equity interests of B.I. Incorporated,
which we refer to as BI, for $415.0 million in cash,
subject to adjustments. BI is a provider of innovative
compliance technologies, industry-leading monitoring services,
and evidence-based supervision and treatment programs for
community-based parolees, probationers and pretrial defendants.
Additionally, BI has an exclusive contract with
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which we refer to
as ICE, to provide supervision and reporting services designed
to improve the participation of non-detained aliens in the
immigration court system. We believe the addition of BI will
provide us with the ability to offer turn-key solutions to our
customers in managing the full lifecycle of an offender from
arraignment to reintegration into the community, which we refer
to as the corrections lifecycle.
We provide a diversified scope of services on behalf of our
government clients:
|
|
|
|
|
our correctional and detention management services involve the
provision of security, administrative, rehabilitation,
education, health and food services, primarily at adult male
correctional and detention facilities;
|
|
|
|
our mental health and residential treatment services involve
working with governments to deliver quality care, innovative
programming and active patient treatment, primarily in
state-owned mental healthcare facilities;
|
|
|
|
our community-based services involve supervision of adult
parolees and probationers and the provision of temporary
housing, programming, employment assistance and other services
with the intention of the successful reintegration of residents
into the community;
|
|
|
|
our youth services include residential, detention and shelter
care and community-based services along with rehabilitative,
educational and treatment programs;
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
we develop new facilities, using our project development
experience to design, construct and finance what we believe are
state-of-the-art
facilities that maximize security and efficiency;
|
|
|
|
we provide secure transportation services for offender and
detainee populations as contracted; and
|
|
|
|
as a result of the BI Acquisition, we also provide comprehensive
electronic monitoring and supervision services.
|
We maintained an average companywide facility occupancy rate of
94.5% for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011, excluding
facilities that are either idle or under development. As a
result of our merger with Cornell and our acquisition of BI on
February 10, 2011, we will benefit from the combined
companys increased scale and diversification of service
offerings.
Business
Segments
We conduct our business through four reportable business
segments: our U.S. Detention & Corrections segment;
our International Services segment; our GEO Care segment and our
Facility Construction & Design segment. We have identified
these four segments to reflect our current view that we operate
four distinct business lines, each of which constitutes a
material part of our overall business. Our U.S. Detention
& Corrections segment primarily encompasses our
U.S.-based
privatized corrections and detention business. Our International
Services segment primarily consists of our privatized
corrections and detention operations in South Africa, Australia
and the United Kingdom. Our GEO Care segment comprises our
privatized mental health and residential treatment services
business, our community-based services business and our youth
services business, all of which are currently conducted in the
U.S. Following the BI Acquisition, our GEO Care segment
also comprises electronic monitoring and supervision services.
Our Facility Construction & Design segment primarily
contracts with various state, local and federal agencies for the
design and construction of facilities for which we generally
have been, or expect to be, awarded management contracts.
Financial information about these segments for fiscal years
2010, 2009 and 2008 is contained in
Note 18 Business Segments and Geographic
Information of the Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements included in this
Form 10-K
and is incorporated herein by this reference.
Recent
Developments
Acquisition
of BII Holding
On February 10, 2011, GEO completed its previously
announced acquisition of BI, a Colorado corporation, pursuant to
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 21,
2010 (the Merger Agreement), with BII Holding, a
Delaware corporation, which owns BI, GEO Acquisition IV, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of GEO
(Merger Sub), BII Investors IF LP, in its capacity
as the stockholders representative, and AEA Investors 2006
Fund L.P. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger
Sub merged with and into BII Holding (the Merger),
with BII Holding emerging as the surviving corporation of the
merger. As a result of the Merger, GEO paid merger consideration
of $415.0 million in cash excluding transaction related
expenses and subject to certain adjustments. Under the Merger
Agreement, $12.5 million of the merger consideration was
placed in an escrow account for a one-year period to satisfy any
applicable indemnification claims pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement by GEO, the Merger Sub or its affiliates. At
the time of the BI Acquisition, approximately
$78.4 million, including accrued interest was outstanding
under BIs senior term loan and $107.5 million,
including accrued interest was outstanding under its senior
subordinated note purchase agreement, excluding the unamortized
debt discount. All indebtedness of BI under its senior term loan
and senior subordinated note purchase agreement were repaid by
BI with a portion of the $415.0 million of merger
consideration. BI will be integrated into our wholly-owned
subsidiary, GEO Care.
Senior
Notes due 2021
On February 10, 2011, we completed the issuance of
$300.0 million in aggregate principal amount of
ten-year,
6.625% senior unsecured notes due 2021, which we refer to
as the 6.625% Senior Notes, in a private offering under an
Indenture dated as of February 10, 2011 among us, certain
of our domestic subsidiaries, as
4
guarantors, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as
trustee. The 6.625% Senior Notes were offered and sold to
qualified institutional buyers in accordance with Rule 144A
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and outside the
United States in accordance with Regulation S under the
Securities Act. The 6.625% Senior Notes were issued at a coupon
rate and yield to maturity of 6.625%. Interest on the 6.625%
Senior Notes will accrue at the rate of 6.625% per annum and
will be payable semi-annually in arrears on February 15 and
August 15, commencing on August 15, 2011. The 6.625%
Senior Notes mature on February 15, 2021. We used the net
proceeds from this offering along with $150.0 million of
borrowings under our senior credit facility to finance the
acquisition of BI and to pay related fees, costs, and expenses.
We used the remaining net proceeds for general corporate
purposes.
Acquisition
of Cornell
On August 12, 2010, we completed our acquisition of
Cornell, a Houston-based provider of correctional, detention,
educational, rehabilitation and treatment services outsourced by
federal, state, county and local government agencies for adults
and juveniles. The acquisition was completed pursuant to a
definitive merger agreement entered into on April 18, 2010,
and amended on July 22, 2010, between us, GEO
Acquisition III, Inc., and Cornell. Under the terms of the
merger agreement, we acquired 100% of the outstanding common
stock of Cornell for aggregate consideration of
$618.3 million, excluding cash acquired of
$12.9 million and including: (i) cash payments for
Cornells outstanding common stock of $84.9 million,
(ii) payments made on behalf of Cornell related to
Cornells transaction costs accrued prior to the
acquisition of $6.4 million, (iii) cash payments for
the settlement of certain of Cornells debt plus accrued
interest of $181.9 million using proceeds from our senior
credit facility, (iv) common stock consideration of
$357.8 million, and (v) the fair value of stock option
replacement awards of $0.2 million. The value of the equity
consideration was based on the closing price of the
Companys common stock on August 12, 2010 of $22.70.
Senior
Credit Facility
On August 4, 2010, we entered into a new Credit Agreement,
between us, as Borrower, certain of our subsidiaries as
Guarantors, and BNP Paribas, as Lender and Administrative Agent,
which we refer to as our Senior Credit Facility,
comprised of (i) a $150.0 million Term Loan A,
referred to as Term Loan A, initially bearing
interest at LIBOR plus 2.5% and maturing August 4, 2015,
(ii) a $200.0 million Term Loan B referred to as
Term Loan B, initially bearing interest at LIBOR
plus 3.25% with a LIBOR floor of 1.50% and maturing
August 4, 2016 and (iii) a Revolving Credit Facility,
referred to as Revolving Credit Facility or
Revolver, of $400.0 million initially bearing
interest at LIBOR plus 2.5% and maturing August 4, 2015. On
August 4, 2010, we used proceeds from borrowings under the
Senior Credit Facility primarily to repay existing borrowings
and accrued interest under the Third Amended and Restated Credit
Agreement, which we refer to as the Prior Senior Credit
Agreement, of $267.7 million and to pay
$6.7 million for financing fees related to the Senior
Credit Facility. On August 4, 2010, the Prior Senior Credit
Agreement was terminated. On August 12, 2010, in connection
with the Cornell merger, we primarily used aggregate proceeds of
$290.0 million from the Term Loan A and from the Revolver
under the Senior Credit Facility to repay Cornells
obligations plus accrued interest under its revolving line of
credit due December 2011 of $67.5 million, to repay its
obligations plus accrued interest under the existing
10.75% Senior Notes due July 2012 of $114.4 million,
to pay $14.0 million in transaction costs and to pay the
cash component of the Cornell merger consideration of
$84.9 million.
Amendment
of Senior Credit Facility
On February 8, 2011, we entered into Amendment No. 1,
dated as of February 8, 2011, to the Credit Agreement dated
as of August 4, 2010, by and among us, the Guarantors party
thereto, the lenders party thereto and BNP Paribas, as
administrative agent, which we refer to as Amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 1, among other things amended certain
definitions and covenants relating to the total leverage ratios
and the senior secured leverage ratios set forth in the Credit
Agreement. Effective February 10, 2011, the revolving
credit commitments under the Senior Credit Facility were
increased by an aggregate principal amount equal to
5
$100.0 million, resulting in an aggregate of
$500.0 million of revolving credit commitments. Also
effective February 10, 2011, GEO obtained an additional
$150.0 million of term loans under the Senior Credit
Facility, specifically under a new $150.0 million
incremental Term Loan
A-2,
initially bearing interest at LIBOR plus 2.75%. Following the
execution of Amendment No. 1, the Senior Credit Facility is
now comprised of: a $150.0 million Term Loan A due August
2015; a $150.0 million Term Loan
A-2 due
August 2015; a $200.0 million Term Loan B due August 2016;
and a $500.0 million Revolving Credit Facility due August
2015. Incremental borrowings of $150.0 million under our
amended Senior Credit Facility along with proceeds from our
$300.0 million 6.625% Senior Notes were used to finance the
acquisition of BI. As of February 10, 2011 and following
the BI acquisition, the Company had $493.4 million in
borrowings, net of discount, outstanding under the term loans,
approximately $210.0 million in borrowings under the
Revolving Credit Facility, approximately $56.2 million in
letters of credit and approximately $233.8 million in
additional borrowing capacity under the Revolving Credit
Facility.
Retirement
of Wayne H. Calabrese
Wayne H. Calabrese, our former Vice Chairman, President and
Chief Operating Officer retired effective December 31,
2010, as previously announced on August 26, 2010.
Mr. Calabreses business development and oversight
responsibilities have been reassigned throughout our senior
management team and existing corporate structure.
Mr. Calabrese will continue to work with us in a consulting
capacity pursuant to a consulting agreement, dated as of
August 26, 2010 (the Consulting Agreement)
providing for a minimum term of one year. Under the terms of the
Consulting Agreement, which began on January 3, 2011,
Mr. Calabrese provides services to us and our subsidiaries
for a monthly consulting fee. Services provided include business
development and contract administration assistance relative to
new and existing contracts.
Stock
Repurchase Program
On February 22, 2010, we announced that our Board of
Directors approved a stock repurchase program for up to
$80.0 million of our common stock which was effective
through March 31, 2011. The stock repurchase program was
implemented through purchases made from time to time in the open
market or in privately negotiated transactions, in accordance
with applicable Securities and Exchange Commission requirements.
The program also included repurchases from time to time from
executive officers or directors of vested restricted stock
and/or
vested stock options. The stock repurchase program did not
obligate us to purchase any specific amount of our common stock
and could be suspended or extended at any time at our
discretion. During the fiscal year ended January 2 2011, we
completed the program and purchased 4.0 million shares of
our common stock at a cost of $80.0 million using cash on
hand and cash flow from operating activities. Of the aggregate
4.0 million shares repurchased during the fiscal year ended
January 2, 2011, 1.1 million shares were repurchased
from executive officers at an aggregate cost of
$22.3 million. Also during the fiscal year ended
January 2, 2011, we repurchased 0.3 million shares of
common stock from certain directors and executives for an
aggregate cost of $7.1 million. These shares were retired
immediately upon repurchase.
Facility
activations
The following new projects were activated during the fiscal year
ended January 2, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Location
|
|
Activation
|
|
Beds(1)
|
|
|
Start date
|
|
Aurora ICE Processing Center
|
|
Aurora, Colorado
|
|
New facility
|
|
|
N/A
|
(2)
|
|
Third Quarter 2010
|
Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre
|
|
London, England
|
|
360-bed Expansion
|
|
|
620
|
|
|
Third Quarter 2010
|
Blackwater River Correctional Facility
|
|
Milton, FL
|
|
New contract
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2010
|
D. Ray James Correctional Facility
|
|
Folkston, GA
|
|
New contract
|
|
|
2,847
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2010
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total Beds represents design capacity of the facility. |
|
(2) |
|
We began transferring detainees from the 432-bed Aurora
Detention Facility to the newly constructed 1,100-bed ICE
Processing Center on July 17, 2010. |
6
In addition to the activations in the table above, we also
announced an asset acquisition and several contract awards
during the fiscal year 2010 as follows:
On June 7, 2010, we announced the acquisition of a 650-bed
Correctional Facility in Adelanto, California, the Desert Sands
Facility, for approximately $28.0 million financed with
free cash flow and borrowings available under our Prior Senior
Credit Agreement. During 2010, we began a project to retrofit
this facility. We will market this facility to local, state and
federal correctional and detention agencies.
On June 16, 2010, we announced the award of a contract from
the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for the
continued management of the company-owned Rivers Correctional
Institution (Rivers) located in Winton, North
Carolina. The new contract will have a term of ten years,
inclusive of renewal options. Under the terms of the new
contract, Rivers will house up to 1,450 BOP inmates with an
occupancy guaranteed level of 90 percent, or 1,135 beds.
On June 22, 2010, we announced the signing of a new
contract with the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
Corrections for the continued management of the 1,538-bed Allen
Correctional Center located in Kinder, Louisiana. The new
managed-only contract has a term of ten years effective
July 1, 2010. We have managed this facility since December
2009.
On June 22, 2010, we announced the signing of a contract
with the Mississippi Department of Corrections for the continued
management of the 1,000-bed Marshall County Correctional
Facility located in Holly Springs, Mississippi. The new
managed-only contract has a term of five years effective
September 1, 2010. We have managed this facility since June
1996.
On July 21, 2010, we announced the execution of a new
contract with the State of Georgia, Department of Corrections
for the development and operation of a new 1,500-bed
correctional facility to be located in Milledgeville, Georgia.
Under the terms of the contract, we will finance, develop, and
operate the new
1,500-bed
Facility on state-owned land pursuant to a
40-year
ground lease. This facility is expected to cost
$80.0 million and open in the first quarter of 2012.
On July 26, 2010, we announced our signing of a contract
amendment with the East Mississippi Correctional Facility
Authority (the Authority) for the continued
management of the 1,500-bed East Mississippi Correctional
Facility located in Meridian, Mississippi. The amendment extends
our management contract with the Authority through
March 15, 2015. The Authority in turn has a concurrent
contract with the Mississippi Department of Corrections for the
housing of Mississippi inmates at this facility.
On November 4, 2010, we announced our signing of a contract
with the State of California, Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation for the
out-of-state
housing of up to 2,580 California inmates at our North Lake
Correctional Facility located in Baldwin, Michigan. GEO will
undertake a $60.0 million renovation and expansion project
to convert this facilitys existing dormitory housing units
to cells and to increase the capacity of the 1,748-bed facility
to 2,580 beds. We expect to complete the cell conversion of the
existing dormitory housing units in the second quarter of 2011
and the new 832-bed expansion in the fourth quarter of 2011.
On November 5, 2010, we announced we were selected by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for
contract awards for the housing of 650 female inmates at our
owned 250-bed McFarland Community Correctional Facility and our
400-bed Mesa Verde Community Correctional Facility located in
California. We were subsequently informed by the state that
these contract awards have been put on hold, pending further
review regarding the states needs.
On November 18, 2010, we announced we were selected by the
State of Indiana, Department of Correction, which we refer to as
IDOC, for the management of the Short Term Offender Program at
an existing state-owned facility in Plainfield, Indiana pending
the completion of contract negotiations which were finalized in
February 2011. GEO expects this facility to initially house
approximately 300 inmates and ramp up to 1,066 inmates over
time. We will manage the facility under a four-year contract
with up to a four-year renewal option period.
7
On November 23, 2010, we announced that our wholly-owned
subsidiary, GEO Care, signed a contract with Montgomery County,
Texas for the management of the county-owned, 100-bed Montgomery
County Mental Health Treatment Facility to be located in Conroe,
Texas. The management contract between GEO Care and Montgomery
County will have an initial term effective through
August 31, 2011 with unlimited two-year renewal option
periods. Montgomery County in turn has signed an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Texas for the
housing of a mental health forensic population at this facility.
We expect this facility to open in March 2011.
On December 8, 2010, we announced that Karnes County, Texas
was awarded an Intergovernmental Services Agreement by ICE for
the housing of up to 600 immigration detainees in a new 600-bed
Civil Detention Center to be located in Karnes City, Texas. This
center will be developed and operated by us pursuant to our
subcontract with Karnes County and will be the first facility
designed and operated for low risk detainees. We will finance,
develop and manage the company-owned facility, which is expected
to cost $32.0 million and be completed during the fourth
quarter of 2011.
On December 15, 2010, we announced a 512-bed expansion of
the 2,524-bed New Castle Correctional Facility in New Castle,
Indiana managed by GEO under a contract with IDOC. We will fund
and develop the high-security expansion, which is estimated to
cost approximately $23.0 million, under a development
agreement with the Indiana Finance Authority and will manage the
expansion under an amendment to our existing management contract
with IDOC. The amendment extends the management contract term,
previously due to expire in September 2015, through
June 30, 2030, including all renewal option periods.
Contract
terminations
The following contracts were terminated during the fiscal year
2010. We do not expect that the termination of these contracts
will have a material adverse impact, individually or in the
aggregate, on our financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows.
On April 4, 2010, our wholly-owned Australian subsidiary
completed the transition of its management of the Melbourne
Custody Center (the Center) to another service
provider. The Center was operated on behalf of the Victoria
Police to house prisoners, escort and guard prisoners for the
Melbourne Magistrate Courts and to provide primary healthcare.
On April 14, 2010, we announced the results of the re-bids
of two of our managed-only contracts. The State of Florida
issued a Notice of Intent to Award contracts for the 1,884-bed
Graceville Correctional Facility located in Graceville, Florida
and the 985-bed Moore Haven Correctional Facility located in
Moore Haven, Florida to another operator. These contracts
terminated effective September 26, 2010 and August 1,
2010, respectively.
On June 22, 2010, we announced the discontinuation of our
managed-only contract for the 520-bed Bridgeport Correctional
Center in Texas following a competitive re-bid process conducted
by the State of Texas. The contract terminated effective
August 31, 2010.
Effective September 1, 2010, our management contract for
the operation of the 450-bed South Texas Intermediate Sanction
Facility terminated. This facility was not owned by us.
Effective May 29, 2011, our subsidiary in the United
Kingdom will no longer manage the 215-bed Campsfield House
Immigration Removal Centre in Kidlington, England.
Quality
of Operations
We operate each facility in accordance with our company-wide
policies and procedures and with the standards and guidelines
required under the relevant management contract. For many
facilities, the standards and guidelines include those
established by the American Correctional Association, or ACA.
The ACA is an independent organization of corrections
professionals, which establishes correctional facility standards
and guidelines that are generally acknowledged as a benchmark by
governmental agencies responsible for correctional facilities.
Many of our contracts in the United States require us to seek
and maintain ACA
8
accreditation of the facility. We have sought and received ACA
accreditation and re-accreditation for all such facilities. We
achieved a median re-accreditation score of 99.6% as of
January 2, 2011. Approximately 71.8% of our 2010
U.S. Detention & Corrections revenue was derived from
ACA accredited facilities for the year ended January 2,
2011. We have also achieved and maintained accreditation by The
Joint Commission (TJC), at three of our correctional facilities,
at our forensic unit in South Carolina and at three of our other
adult treatment facilities. In addition, our managed-only
720-bed Florida Civil Commitment Center in Arcadia, Florida
obtained successful Commission on Accreditation of
Rehabilitation Facilities, CARF, accreditation within
18 months of operation. We have been successful in
achieving and maintaining accreditation under the National
Commission on Correctional Health Care, or NCCHC, in a majority
of the facilities that we currently operate. The NCCHC
accreditation is a voluntary process which we have used to
establish comprehensive health care policies and procedures to
meet and adhere to the ACA standards. The NCCHC standards, in
most cases, exceed ACA Health Care Standards.
Business
Development Overview
We intend to pursue a diversified growth strategy by winning new
clients and contracts, expanding our government services
portfolio and pursuing selective acquisition opportunities. Our
primary potential customers are governmental agencies
responsible for local, state and federal correctional facilities
in the United States and governmental agencies responsible for
correctional facilities in Australia, South Africa and the
United Kingdom. Other primary customers include state agencies
in the United States responsible for mental health facilities,
juvenile offenders and other adult parolees and probationers as
well as foreign governmental agencies. We achieve organic growth
through competitive bidding that begins with the issuance by a
government agency of a request for proposal, or RFP. We
primarily rely on the RFP process for organic growth in our
U.S. and international corrections operations as well as in
our mental health and residential treatment, youth services, and
community based re-entry services business.
Our state and local experience has been that a period of
approximately sixty to ninety days is generally required from
the issuance of a request for proposal to the submission of our
response to the request for proposal; that between one and four
months elapse between the submission of our response and the
agencys award for a contract; and that between one and
four months elapse between the award of a contract and the
commencement of facility construction or management of the
facility, as applicable.
Our federal experience has been that a period of approximately
sixty to ninety days is generally required from the issuance of
a request for proposal to the submission of our response to the
request for proposal; that between twelve and eighteen months
elapse between the submission of our response and the
agencys award for a contract; and that between four and
eighteen weeks elapse between the award of a contract and the
commencement of facility construction or management of the
facility, as applicable.
If the state, local or federal facility for which an award has
been made must be constructed, our experience is that
construction usually takes between nine and twenty-four months
to complete, depending on the size and complexity of the
project. Therefore, management of a newly constructed facility
typically commences between ten and twenty-eight months after
the governmental agencys award.
We believe that our long operating history and reputation have
earned us credibility with both existing and prospective
customers when bidding on new facility management contracts or
when renewing existing contracts. Our success in the RFP process
has resulted in a pipeline of new projects with significant
revenue potential. During 2010, we activated four new or
expansion projects representing an aggregate of 4,867 additional
beds compared to the activation of eight new or expansion
projects representing an aggregate of 2,698 beds during 2009.
Also in 2010, we received awards for 7,846 beds out of the
aggregate total of 19,849 beds awarded by governmental agencies
during the year.
In addition to pursuing organic growth through the RFP process,
we will from time to time selectively consider the financing and
construction of new facilities or expansions to existing
facilities on a speculative basis without having a signed
contract with a known customer. We also plan to leverage our
experience to expand the range of government-outsourced services
that we provide. We will continue to pursue selected acquisition
opportunities in our core services and other government services
areas that meet our criteria for
9
growth and profitability. We have engaged and intend in the
future to engage independent consultants to assist us in
developing privatization opportunities and in responding to
requests for proposals, monitoring the legislative and business
climate, and maintaining relationships with existing customers.
Facility
Design, Construction and Finance
We offer governmental agencies consultation and management
services relating to the design and construction of new
correctional and detention facilities and the redesign and
renovation of older facilities. Domestically, as of
January 2, 2011, we had provided services for the design
and construction of approximately forty-six facilities and for
the redesign and renovation and expansion of approximately
thirty-three facilities. Internationally, as of January 2,
2011, we had provided services for the design and construction
of ten facilities and for the redesign, renovation and expansion
of one facility.
Contracts to design and construct or to redesign and renovate
facilities may be financed in a variety of ways. Governmental
agencies may finance the construction of such facilities through
any of the following methods:
|
|
|
|
|
a one time general revenue appropriation by the governmental
agency for the cost of the new facility;
|
|
|
|
general obligation bonds that are secured by either a limited or
unlimited tax levy by the issuing governmental entity; or
|
|
|
|
revenue bonds or certificates of participation secured by an
annual lease payment that is subject to annual or bi-annual
legislative appropriations.
|
We may also act as a source of financing or as a facilitator
with respect to the financing of the construction of a facility.
In these cases, the construction of such facilities may be
financed through various methods including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
funds from equity offerings of our stock;
|
|
|
|
cash on hand
and/or cash
flows from our operations;
|
|
|
|
borrowings by us from banks or other institutions (which may or
may not be subject to government guarantees in the event of
contract termination); or
|
|
|
|
lease arrangements with third parties.
|
If the project is financed using direct governmental
appropriations, with proceeds of the sale of bonds or other
obligations issued prior to the award of the project, then
financing is in place when the contract relating to the
construction or renovation project is executed. If the project
is financed using project-specific tax-exempt bonds or other
obligations, the construction contract is generally subject to
the sale of such bonds or obligations. Generally, substantial
expenditures for construction will not be made on such a project
until the tax-exempt bonds or other obligations are sold; and,
if such bonds or obligations are not sold, construction and
therefore, management of the facility, may either be delayed
until alternative financing is procured or the development of
the project will be suspended or entirely cancelled. If the
project is self-financed by us, then financing is generally in
place prior to the commencement of construction.
Under our construction and design management contracts, we
generally agree to be responsible for overall project
development and completion. We typically act as the primary
developer on construction contracts for facilities and
subcontract with bonded National
and/or
Regional Design Build Contractors. Where possible, we
subcontract with construction companies that we have worked with
previously. We make use of an in-house staff of architects and
operational experts from various correctional disciplines (e.g.
security, medical service, food service, inmate programs and
facility maintenance) as part of the team that participates from
conceptual design through final construction of the project.
This staff coordinates all aspects of the development with
subcontractors and provides site-specific services.
When designing a facility, our architects use, with appropriate
modifications, prototype designs we have used in developing
prior projects. We believe that the use of these designs allows
us to reduce the potential of
10
cost overruns and construction delays and to reduce the number
of correctional officers required to provide security at a
facility, thus controlling costs both to construct and to manage
the facility. Our facility designs also maintain security
because they increase the area under direct surveillance by
correctional officers and make use of additional electronic
surveillance.
The following table sets forth current expansion and development
projects at various stages of completion:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Following
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
Expansion/
|
|
|
Completion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facilities Under Construction
|
|
Beds
|
|
|
Construction
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Customer
|
|
Financing
|
|
Adelanto Facility, California
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
650
|
|
|
|
Q1 2011
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
GEO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Lake Correctional Facility, Michigan
|
|
|
832
|
|
|
|
2,580
|
|
|
|
Q4 2011
|
|
|
CDCR(2)
|
|
GEO
|
Riverbend Correctional Facility, Georgia
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
Q1 2012
|
|
|
GDOC(3)
|
|
GEO
|
Karnes County Civil Detention Facility, Texas
|
|
|
600
|
|
|
|
600
|
|
|
|
Q4 2011
|
|
|
ICE(4)
|
|
GEO
|
New Castle Correctional Facility, Indiana
|
|
|
512
|
|
|
|
3,196
|
|
|
|
Q1 2012
|
|
|
IDOC
|
|
GEO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,444
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We currently do not have a customer for this facility but are
marketing these beds to various local, state and federal
agencies. |
|
(2) |
|
On November 4, 2010, we announced our signing of a contract
with the State of California, Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation for the out-of-state housing of California
inmates at the North Lake Correctional Facility. As a result of
this new contract, we will complete a cell conversion on the
existing 1,748-bed facility in Q2 2011 and expect to complete
the expansion of this facility by 832 beds by the end of Q4 2011. |
|
(3) |
|
On July 21, 2010, we announced the execution of our
contract to develop and operate this facility under a contract
with the Georgia Department of Corrections, which we refer to as
GDOC. |
|
(4) |
|
We will provide services at this facility through an
Inter-Governmental Agreement, or IGA, through Karnes County. |
Competitive
Strengths
Leading
Corrections Provider Uniquely Positioned to Offer a Continuum of
Care
We are the second largest provider of privatized correctional
and detention facilities worldwide, the largest provider of
community-based re-entry services and youth services in the
U.S. and, following the BI Acquisition, we are the largest
provider of electronic monitoring services in the
U.S. corrections industry. We believe these leading market
positions and our diverse and complimentary service offerings
enable us to meet the growing demand from our clients for
comprehensive services throughout the entire corrections
lifecycle. Our continuum of care enables us to provide
consistency and continuity in case management, which we believe
results in a higher quality of care for offenders, reduces
recidivism, lowers overall costs for our clients, improves
public safety and facilitates successful reintegration of
offenders back into society.
Large
Scale Operator with National Presence
We operate the sixth largest correctional system in the
U.S. by number of beds, including the federal government
and all 50 states. We currently have operations in
24 states and, following the BI Acquisition, we will offer
electronic monitoring services in every state. In addition, we
have extensive experience in overall facility operations,
including staff recruitment, administration, facility
maintenance, food service, healthcare, security, and in the
supervision, treatment and education of inmates. We believe our
size and breadth of service offerings enable us to generate
economies of scale which maximize our efficiencies and allows us
to pass along cost savings to our clients. Our national presence
also positions us to bid on and develop new facilities across
the U.S.
11
Long-Term
Relationships with High-Quality Government
Customers
We have developed long-term relationships with our federal,
state and other governmental customers, which we believe enhance
our ability to win new contracts and retain existing business.
We have provided correctional and detention management services
to the United States Federal Government for 24 years, the
State of California for 23 years, the State of Texas for
approximately 23 years, various Australian state government
entities for 19 years and the State of Florida for
approximately 17 years. These customers accounted for
approximately 65.9% of our consolidated revenues for the fiscal
year ended January 2, 2011. The acquisitions of Cornell and
BI have increased our business with our three largest federal
clients, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals
Service and ICE. The BI Acquisition also provides us with a new
service offering for ICE, our largest client.
Recurring
Revenue with Strong Cash Flow
Our revenue base is derived from our long-term customer
relationships, with contract renewal rates and facility
occupancy rates both in excess of 90% over the past five years.
We have been able to expand our revenue base by continuing to
reinvest our strong operating cash flow into expansionary
projects and through strategic acquisitions that provide scale
and further enhance our service offerings. Our consolidated
revenues have grown from $565.5 million in 2004 to
$1.3 billion in 2010. Additionally, we expect to achieve
annual cost savings of $12-$15 million from the Cornell
Acquisition and $3-$5 million from the BI Acquisition. We
expect our operating cash flow to be well in excess of our
anticipated annual maintenance capital expenditure needs, which
would provide us significant flexibility for growth capital
expenditures, acquisitions
and/or the
repayment of indebtedness.
Unique
Privatized Mental Health, Residential Treatment and
Community-Based Services Growth Platform
With the acquisitions of Cornell and BI, we have significantly
expanded the service offerings of GEO Cares privatized
mental health and residential treatment services business by
adding substantial adult community-based residential operations,
as well as new operations in community-based youth behavioral
treatment services, electronic monitoring services and community
re-entry and immigration related supervision services. Through
both organic growth and acquisitions we have been able to grow
GEO Cares business to approximately 6,500 beds and
$213.8 million of revenues for the fiscal year ended
January 2, 2011 from 325 beds and $31.7 million of
revenues for the fiscal year ended 2004. We believe that GEO
Cares core competency of providing diversified mental
health, residential treatment, and community-based services
uniquely position us to meet client demands for solutions that
improve successful society re-integration rates for offenders
throughout the corrections system.
Sizeable
International Business
Our international infrastructure, which leverages our
operational excellence in the U.S., allows us to aggressively
target foreign opportunities that our U.S. based
competitors without overseas operations may have difficulty
pursuing. We currently have international operations in
Australia, Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Our
International services business generated $190.5 million of
revenues, representing 15.0% of our consolidated revenues, for
the year ended January 2, 2011. We believe we are well
positioned to continue benefiting from foreign governments
initiatives to outsource correctional services.
Experienced,
Proven Senior Management Team
Our Chief Executive Officer and the Founder, George C. Zoley,
has led our Company for 26 years and has established a
track record of growth and profitability. Under his leadership,
our annual consolidated revenues from continuing operations have
grown from $40.0 million in 1991 to $1.3 billion in
2010. Dr. Zoley is one of the pioneers of the industry,
having developed and opened what we believe to be one of the
first privatized detention facilities in the U.S. in 1986.
Our Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans, has been with
12
our company for over ten years and has led the integration of
our recent acquisitions and financing activities. Our top six
senior executives have an average tenure with our company of
over ten years.
Business
Strategies
Provide
High Quality, Comprehensive Services and Cost Savings Throughout
the Corrections Lifecycle
Our objective is to provide federal, state and local
governmental agencies with a comprehensive offering of high
quality, essential services at a lower cost than they themselves
could achieve. We believe government agencies facing budgetary
constraints will increasingly seek to outsource a greater
proportion of their correctional needs to reliable providers
that can enhance quality of service at a reduced cost. We
believe our expanded and diversified service offerings uniquely
position us to bundle our high quality services and provide a
comprehensive continuum of care for our clients, which we
believe will lead to lower cost outcomes for our clients and
larger scale business opportunities for us.
Maintain
Disciplined Operating Approach
We refrain from pursuing contracts that we do not believe will
yield attractive profit margins in relation to the associated
operational risks. In addition, although we engage in facility
development from time to time without having a corresponding
management contract award in place we endeavor to do so only
where we have determined that there is medium to long-term
client demand for a facility in that geographical area. We have
also elected not to enter certain international markets with a
history of economic and political instability. We believe that
our strategy of emphasizing lower risk, higher profit
opportunities helps us to consistently deliver strong
operational performance, lower our costs and increase our
overall profitability.
Pursue
International Growth Opportunities
As a global provider of privatized correctional services, we are
able to capitalize on opportunities to operate existing or new
facilities on behalf of foreign governments. We have seen
increased business development opportunities in recent years in
the international markets in which we operate and are currently
bidding on several new projects. We will continue to actively
bid on new international projects in our current markets and in
new markets that fit our target profile for profitability and
operational risk. We also intend to cross sell our expanded
service offerings into these markets, including the electronic
monitoring and supervision services which we acquired in the BI
Acquisition.
Selectively
Pursue Acquisition Opportunities
We intend to continue to supplement our organic growth by
selectively identifying, acquiring and integrating businesses
that fit our strategic objectives and enhance our geographic
platform and service offerings. Since 2005, and including the BI
Acquisition, we will have successfully completed six
acquisitions for total consideration, including debt assumed, in
excess of $1.7 billion. Our management team utilizes a
disciplined approach to analyze and evaluate acquisition
opportunities, which we believe has contributed to our success
in completing and integrating our acquisitions.
Facilities
The following table summarizes certain information as of
January 2, 2011 with respect to U.S. and international
facilities that GEO (or a subsidiary or joint venture of GEO)
owned, operated under a
13
management contract, had an agreement to provide services, had
an award to manage or was in the process of constructing or
expanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Security
|
|
of Current
|
|
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Manage Only
|
& Location
|
|
Capacity(1)
|
|
Customer
|
|
Type
|
|
Level
|
|
Contract(7)
|
|
Base Period
|
|
Options
|
|
Lease/ Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Western Region
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adelanto Processing Center East
|
|
650
|
|
Under construction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alhambra City Jail, Los Angeles, CA
|
|
67
|
|
City of Alhambra
|
|
City Jail
|
|
All Levels
|
|
July 2008
|
|
3 years
|
|
Two,
One-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona State-Prison Florence West Florence, AZ
|
|
750
|
|
AZ DOC
|
|
State DUI/RTC Correctional Facility
|
|
Minimum
|
|
October 2002
|
|
10 years
|
|
Two,
Five-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona State-Prison Phoenix West Phoenix, AZ
|
|
450
|
|
AZ DOC
|
|
State DWI Correctional Facility
|
|
Minimum
|
|
July 2002
|
|
10 years
|
|
Two, Five-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aurora Detention Facility
|
|
432
|
|
Idle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aurora ICE Processing Center Aurora, CO
|
|
1,100
|
|
ICE
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Minimum/Medium
|
|
October 2006
|
|
8 months
|
|
Four,
One-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baker Community Correctional Facility Baker, CA
|
|
262
|
|
Idle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baldwin Park City Jail, Los Angeles, CA
|
|
32
|
|
City of Baldwin Park
|
|
City Jail
|
|
All Levels
|
|
July 2003
|
|
3 years
|
|
Three,
Three-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bell Gardens City Jail Los Angeles, CA
|
|
15
|
|
City of Bell Garden
|
|
City Jail
|
|
All Levels
|
|
March 2008
|
|
4 months
|
|
Two,
Three-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central Arizona Correctional Facility Florence, AZ
|
|
1,280
|
|
AZ DOC
|
|
State Sex Offender Correctional Facility
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
December 2006
|
|
10 years
|
|
Two,
Five-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central Valley MCCF McFarland, CA
|
|
625
|
|
CDCR
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
March 1997
|
|
10 years
|
|
One,
Five year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Desert View MCCF Adelanto, CA
|
|
643
|
|
CDCR
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
March 1997
|
|
10 years
|
|
One,
Five-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Downey City Jail Los Angeles, CA
|
|
30
|
|
City of Downey
|
|
City Jail
|
|
All Levels
|
|
June 2003
|
|
3 years
|
|
Three,
Three-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fontana City Jail Los Angeles, CA
|
|
39
|
|
City of Fontana
|
|
City Jail
|
|
All Levels
|
|
February 2007
|
|
5 months
|
|
Five,
One-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garden Grove City Jail Los Angeles, CA
|
|
16
|
|
City of Garden Grove
|
|
City Jail
|
|
All Levels
|
|
January 2010
|
|
30 months
|
|
Unlimited
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Golden State MCCF McFarland, CA
|
|
625
|
|
CDCR
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
March 1997
|
|
10 years
|
|
One,
Five-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guadalupe County Correctional Facility Santa Rosa, NM(2)
|
|
600
|
|
Guadalupe County/NMCD
|
|
Local/State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
January 1999
|
|
3 years
|
|
One,
two-year and Five,
one-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Plains Correctional Facility Brush, CO
|
|
272
|
|
Idle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Own
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Security
|
|
of Current
|
|
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Manage Only
|
& Location
|
|
Capacity(1)
|
|
Customer
|
|
Type
|
|
Level
|
|
Contract(7)
|
|
Base Period
|
|
Options
|
|
Lease/ Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hudson Correctional Facility Hudson, CO
|
|
1,250
|
|
CO DOC/ AK DOC
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
November 2009
|
|
2.5 years
|
|
Three,
One-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lea County Correctional Facility Hobbs, NM(2),(3)
|
|
1,200
|
|
Lea County/ NMCD
|
|
Local/State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
September 1998
|
|
5 years
|
|
Eight,
one-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility Live Oak, CA
|
|
305
|
|
CDCR
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
October 2005
|
|
5 years
|
|
Two,
Five-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McFarland Community Correctional Facility McFarland, CA
|
|
250
|
|
Idle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mesa Verde Community Correctional Facility Bakersfield, CA
|
|
400
|
|
Idle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Montebello City Jail Los Angeles, CA
|
|
25
|
|
City of Montebello
|
|
City Jail
|
|
All Levels
|
|
January 1996
|
|
2 years
|
|
Unlimited, One-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northeast New
Mexico Detention Facility
Clayton, NM(2)
|
|
625
|
|
Clayton/
NMCD
|
|
Local/
State
Correctional
Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
August 2008
|
|
5 years
|
|
Five,
one-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northwest Detention Center Tacoma, WA
|
|
1,575
|
|
ICE
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
October 2009
|
|
1 year
|
|
Four, one-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ontario City Jail Los Angeles, CA
|
|
40
|
|
City of Ontario
|
|
City Jail
|
|
Any Level
|
|
September 2006
|
|
3 years
|
|
Unlimited, One-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional Correctional Center Albuquerque, NM
|
|
970
|
|
USMS/BOP/ Bernalillo County
|
|
Federal/Local Correctional Facility
|
|
Maximum
|
|
March 2005
|
|
6 years
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Western Region Detention Facility San Diego, CA
|
|
770
|
|
OFDT/USMS
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Maximum
|
|
January 2006
|
|
5 years
|
|
One,
Five-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central Region:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Big Spring Correctional Center Big Spring, TX
|
|
3,509
|
|
BOP
|
|
Federal Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
April 2007
|
|
4 years
|
|
Three, Two-year and One, six-month
|
|
Lease (6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central Texas Detention Facility San Antonio, TX(2)
|
|
688
|
|
Bexar County/ ICE & USMS
|
|
Local & Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
April 2009
|
|
10 years
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleveland Correctional Center Cleveland, TX
|
|
520
|
|
TDCJ
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Minimum
|
|
January 2009
|
|
2.6 years
|
|
Two,
Two-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frio County Detention Center Pearsall, TX(2)
|
|
391
|
|
Frio County/BOP/ Other Counties
|
|
Local Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
November 1997
|
|
12 years
|
|
One,
Five-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great Plains Correctional Facility
|
|
2,048
|
|
Idle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease (6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Corley Detention Facility Conroe, TX(2)
|
|
1,287
|
|
USMS/ICE/BOP Montgomery County
|
|
Local Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
August 2008
|
|
2 years
|
|
Unlimited, two-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Security
|
|
of Current
|
|
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Manage Only
|
& Location
|
|
Capacity(1)
|
|
Customer
|
|
Type
|
|
Level
|
|
Contract(7)
|
|
Base Period
|
|
Options
|
|
Lease/ Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karnes Correctional Center Karnes City, TX(2)
|
|
679
|
|
Karnes County/ ICE & USMS
|
|
Local & Federal Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
May 1998
|
|
30 years
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karnes Civil Detention Center Karnes City, TX
|
|
600
|
|
Under construction
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
December 2010
|
|
5 years
|
|
N/A
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawton Correctional Facility Lawton, OK
|
|
2,526
|
|
OK DOC
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
July 2008
|
|
1 year
|
|
Five, one-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lockhart Secure Work Program Facilities Lockhart, TX
|
|
1,000
|
|
TDCJ
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
January 2009
|
|
2.6 years
|
|
Two, one-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maverick County Detention Facility Maverick, TX(2)
|
|
688
|
|
USMS/BOP Maverick County
|
|
Local Detention Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
December 2008
|
|
3 Years
|
|
Unlimited, Two-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Texas ISF Fort Worth, TX
|
|
424
|
|
TDJC
|
|
State Intermediate Sanction Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
March 2004
|
|
3 Years
|
|
Four, one-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oak Creek Confinement Center Bronte, TX(8)
|
|
200
|
|
Idle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reeves County Detention Complex R1/R2 Pecos, TX(2)
|
|
2,407
|
|
Reeves County/ BOP
|
|
Federal Correctional Facility
|
|
Low
|
|
February 2007
|
|
10 years
|
|
Unlimited ten year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reeves County Detention Complex R3 Pecos, TX(2)
|
|
1,356
|
|
Reeves County/ BOP
|
|
Federal Correctional Facility
|
|
Low
|
|
January 2007
|
|
10 years
|
|
Unlimited ten year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rio Grande Detention Center Laredo, TX
|
|
1,500
|
|
OFDT/USMS
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
October 2008
|
|
5 years
|
|
Three, Five-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Texas Detention Complex Pearsall, TX
|
|
1,904
|
|
ICE
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
June 2005
|
|
1 year
|
|
Four, One-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Val Verde Correctional Facility Del Rio, TX(2)
|
|
1,407
|
|
Val Verde County/USMS/ Border Patrol
|
|
Local & Federal Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
January 2001
|
|
20 years
|
|
Unlimited, Five-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eastern Region:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allen Correctional Center Kinder, LA
|
|
1,538
|
|
LA DPS&C
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium/ Maximum
|
|
July 2010
|
|
10 years
|
|
N/A
|
|
Manage only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blackwater River Correctional Facility Milton, FL
|
|
2,000
|
|
FL DMS
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium/ close
|
|
April 2010
|
|
3 years
|
|
Two, two-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Broward Transition Center Deerfield Beach, FL
|
|
700
|
|
ICE
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Minimum
|
|
April 2009
|
|
11 months
|
|
Four, One-year, Unlimited 6-month
|
|
Own
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Security
|
|
of Current
|
|
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Manage Only
|
& Location
|
|
Capacity(1)
|
|
Customer
|
|
Type
|
|
Level
|
|
Contract(7)
|
|
Base Period
|
|
Options
|
|
Lease/ Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Ray James Correctional Facility Folkston, GA
|
|
2,847
|
|
BOP/USMS/ Charlton County
|
|
Local & Federal Detention Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
October 2010
|
|
4 years
|
|
Three, two-year
|
|
Lease (6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
East Mississippi Correctional Facility Meridian, MS
|
|
1,500
|
|
MS DOC/IGA
|
|
State Mental Health Correctional Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
August 2006
|
|
2 years
|
|
Three, One-year
|
|
Manage only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana STOP Program Plainfield, IN(9)
|
|
1,066
|
|
IDOC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LaSalle Detention Facility Jena, LA(2)
|
|
1,160
|
|
LEDD/ICE
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
July 2007
|
|
Perpetual until termi nated
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawrenceville Correctional Center Lawrenceville, VA
|
|
1,536
|
|
VA DOC
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
March 2003
|
|
5 years
|
|
Ten, One-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marshall County Correctional Facility Holly Springs, MS
|
|
1,000
|
|
MS DOC
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
September 2010
|
|
5 years
|
|
N/A
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Migrant Operations Center Guantanamo Bay NAS, Cuba
|
|
130
|
|
ICE
|
|
Federal Migrant Center
|
|
Minimum
|
|
November 2006
|
|
11 months
|
|
Four, One-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moshannon Valley Correctional Center
|
|
1,495
|
|
BOP
|
|
Federal Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
April 2006
|
|
36 months
|
|
Seven, one-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Castle Correctional Facility New Castle, IN
|
|
2,684+512
expansion
|
|
IDOC
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
January 2006
|
|
4 years
|
|
Three, two-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Lake Correctional Facility(1)
|
|
2,580
|
|
CDCR
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium/Maximum
|
|
June 2011
|
|
5 years
|
|
Two-year unspecified
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Queens Detention Facility Jamaica, NY
|
|
222
|
|
OFDT/USMS
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
January 2008
|
|
2 year
|
|
Four, two-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Riverbend Correctional Facility Milledgeville, GA
|
|
1,500
|
|
GDOC
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
July 2010
|
|
Partial 1 year
|
|
Forty, One-year and one partial year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rivers Correctional Institution Winton, NC
|
|
1,450
|
|
BOP
|
|
Federal Correctional Facility
|
|
Low
|
|
March 2001
|
|
3 years
|
|
Seven, One-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility Lovejoy, GA
|
|
768
|
|
OFDT/USMS
|
|
Federal Detention Facility
|
|
Medium
|
|
February 2008
|
|
5 years
|
|
Three, Five year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Bay Correctional Facility South Bay, FL
|
|
1,862
|
|
DMS
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Medium/ close
|
|
July 2009
|
|
3 years
|
|
Unlimited, Two-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility Walnut Grove, MS
|
|
1,450
|
|
MS DOC
|
|
State Correctional Facility
|
|
Maximum
|
|
October 2006
|
|
3 years
|
|
N/A
|
|
Manage Only
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Security
|
|
of Current
|
|
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Manage Only
|
& Location
|
|
Capacity(1)
|
|
Customer
|
|
Type
|
|
Level
|
|
Contract(7)
|
|
Base Period
|
|
Options
|
|
Lease/ Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International Services:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre Queensland, Australia
|
|
890
|
|
QLD DCS
|
|
State Remand Prison
|
|
High/ Maximum
|
|
January 2008
|
|
5 years
|
|
One, Five-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fulham Correctional Centre & Nalu Challenge Community
Victoria, Australia
|
|
785
|
|
VIC DOJ
|
|
State Prison
|
|
Minimum/ Medium
|
|
October 1995
|
|
22 years
|
|
None
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junee Correctional Centre New South Wales, Australia
|
|
790
|
|
NSW
|
|
State Prison
|
|
Minimum/Medium
|
|
April 2009
|
|
5 years
|
|
Two, Five-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pacific Shores Healthcare Victoria, Australia(5)
|
|
N/A
|
|
VIC CV
|
|
Health Care Services
|
|
N/A
|
|
July 2009
|
|
17 months
|
|
Two, six-month
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parklea Correctional Centre Sydney, Australia
|
|
823
|
|
NSW
|
|
State Remand Prison
|
|
All Levels
|
|
October 2009
|
|
5 years
|
|
One, Three-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre Kidlington, England
|
|
215
|
|
UK Home Office of Immigration
|
|
Detention Centre
|
|
Minimum
|
|
May 2006
|
|
3 years
|
|
One, Two-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre London, England
|
|
620
|
|
United Kingdom Border Agency
|
|
Detention Centre
|
|
Minimum
|
|
June 2009
|
|
3 years
|
|
None
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Africa:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kutama-Sinthumule Correctional Centre Limpopo Province, Republic
of South Africa
|
|
3,024
|
|
RSA DCS
|
|
National Prison
|
|
Maximum
|
|
February 2002
|
|
25 years
|
|
None
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Brunswick Youth Centre Mirimachi, Canada(4)
|
|
N/A
|
|
PNB
|
|
Provincial Juvenile Facility
|
|
All Levels
|
|
October 1997
|
|
25 years
|
|
One, Ten-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GEO Care:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential Treatment Services:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia Regional Care Center Columbia, SC
|
|
354
|
|
SCDOH/GDOC ICE/USMS
|
|
Correctional Health Care Hospital
|
|
Medical and Mental Health
|
|
July 2005
|
|
8 years
|
|
None
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida Civil Commitment Center Arcadia, FL
|
|
720
|
|
DCF
|
|
State Civil Commitment
|
|
All Levels
|
|
April 2009
|
|
5 years
|
|
Three, five-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Montgomery County Mental Health Treatment Facility Montgomery, TX
|
|
100
|
|
MC
|
|
Mental Health Treatment Facility
|
|
Mental Health
|
|
March 2011
|
|
Partial six-month
|
|
Unlimited two-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Palm Beach County Jail Palm Beach, FL
|
|
N/A
|
|
PBC as Subcontractor to Armor Healthcare
|
|
Mental Health Services to County Jail
|
|
All Levels
|
|
May 2006
|
|
5 years
|
|
N/A
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Florida State Hospital Pembroke Pines, FL
|
|
335
|
|
DCF
|
|
State Psychiatric Hospital
|
|
Mental Health
|
|
July 2008
|
|
5 years
|
|
Three, Five-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Security
|
|
of Current
|
|
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Manage Only
|
& Location
|
|
Capacity(1)
|
|
Customer
|
|
Type
|
|
Level
|
|
Contract(7)
|
|
Base Period
|
|
Options
|
|
Lease/ Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center Miami, FL
|
|
238
|
|
DCF
|
|
State Forensic Hospital
|
|
Mental Health
|
|
January 2006
|
|
5 years
|
|
Three, Five-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasure Coast Forensic Treatment Center Stuart, FL
|
|
223
|
|
DCF
|
|
State Forensic Hospital
|
|
Mental Health
|
|
April 2007
|
|
5 years
|
|
One, Five-year
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Community Based Services:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beaumont Transitional Treatment Center Beaumont, TX
|
|
180
|
|
TDCJ
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
Sept 2003
|
|
2 years
|
|
Five, Two-year and One, six-month
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bronx Community Re-entry Center Bronx, NY
|
|
110
|
|
BOP
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
October 2007
|
|
2 years
|
|
Three, One-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brooklyn Community Re-entry Center Brooklyn, NY
|
|
177
|
|
BOP
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
August 2010
|
|
6 months
|
|
Three, two-month
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cordova Center Anchorage, AK
|
|
192
|
|
AK DOC
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
September 2007
|
|
7 months
|
|
Four, one-year, One five-month
|
|
Lease (6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Monte Center El Monte, CA
|
|
55
|
|
BOP
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
March 2008
|
|
7 months
|
|
Four, one-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grossman Center Leavenworth, KS
|
|
150
|
|
BOP
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
October 2007
|
|
2 years
|
|
Three, one-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Las Vegas Community Correctional Center Las Vegas, NV
|
|
100
|
|
BOP/USPO
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
October 2010
|
|
2 years
|
|
Three, one-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leidel Comprehensive Sanction Center Houston, TX
|
|
190
|
|
BOP/USPO
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
January 2011
|
|
2 years
|
|
Three, one-year
|
|
Lease(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marvin Gardens Center Los Angeles, CA
|
|
52
|
|
BOP
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
May 2006
|
|
2 years
|
|
Three, one-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McCabe Center Austin, TX
|
|
90
|
|
BOP/ Travis County/ Angelina County
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
April 2007
|
|
2 years
|
|
Three, one-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid Valley House Edinburg, TX
|
|
96
|
|
BOP/US Probation
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
December 2008
|
|
2 years
|
|
Three, one-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Midtown Center Anchorage, AK
|
|
32
|
|
AK DOC
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
September 2007
|
|
7 months
|
|
Four, one-year, One five-month
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northstar Center Fairbanks, AK
|
|
135
|
|
AK DOC/ BOP
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
December 2005
|
|
7 months
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oakland Center Oakland, CA
|
|
61
|
|
BOP
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
November 2008
|
|
3 years
|
|
Seven, one-year
|
|
Own
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Security
|
|
of Current
|
|
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Manage Only
|
& Location
|
|
Capacity(1)
|
|
Customer
|
|
Type
|
|
Level
|
|
Contract(7)
|
|
Base Period
|
|
Options
|
|
Lease/ Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parkview Center Anchorage, AK
|
|
112
|
|
AK DOC
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
September 2007
|
|
7 months
|
|
Four, one-year, One five-month
|
|
Lease(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reality House Brownsville, TX
|
|
66
|
|
BOP/ US Probation
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
December 2005
|
|
2 years
|
|
Three, one-year, One two-month
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reid Community Residential Facility Houston, TX
|
|
500
|
|
TDCJ
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
September 2003
|
|
2 years
|
|
Five, two-year
|
|
Lease(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salt Lake City Center Salt Lake City, UT
|
|
78
|
|
BOP/ US Probation
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
December 2005
|
|
1 year
|
|
Three, one-year, One two-month
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seaside Center Nome, AK
|
|
48
|
|
AK DOC
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
December 2007
|
|
1 year
|
|
Five, one-year
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor Street Center San Francisco, CA
|
|
177
|
|
BOP/ CDCR
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
February 2006
|
|
3 years
|
|
Seven, one-year
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tundra Center Bethel, AK
|
|
85
|
|
AK DOC
|
|
Community Corrections Facility
|
|
Community
|
|
December 2006
|
|
1 year
|
|
Five, one-year
|
|
Lease(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Youth Services:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential Facilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abraxas Academy Morgantown, PA
|
|
214
|
|
Various
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Secure
|
|
2006
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abraxas Center For Adolescent Females Pittsburg, PA
|
|
108
|
|
Various
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Staff Secure
|
|
1989
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abraxas I Marienville, PA
|
|
274
|
|
Various
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Staff Secure
|
|
1973
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abraxas Ohio Shelby, OH
|
|
108
|
|
Various
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Staff Secure
|
|
1993
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abraxas III, Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
24
|
|
Idle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abraxas Youth Center South Mountain, PA
|
|
72
|
|
Various
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Secure/Staff Secure
|
|
1999
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Interventions Wauconda, IL
|
|
32
|
|
IL DASA, Medicaid, Private
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Staff Secure
|
|
1999
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DuPage Interventions Hinsdale, IL
|
|
36
|
|
IL DASA, Medicaid, Private
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Staff Secure
|
|
1999
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erie Residential Programs Erie, PA
|
|
40
|
|
Various
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Staff Secure
|
|
1974
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hector Garza Center San Antonio, TX
|
|
122
|
|
TDFPS, TYC and County Probation Depts.
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Staff Secure
|
|
2003
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease(6)
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility
|
|
Security
|
|
of Current
|
|
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Manage Only
|
& Location
|
|
Capacity(1)
|
|
Customer
|
|
Type
|
|
Level
|
|
Contract(7)
|
|
Base Period
|
|
Options
|
|
Lease/ Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leadership Development Program South Mountain, PA
|
|
128
|
|
Various
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Staff Secure
|
|
1994
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schaffner Youth Center Steelton, PA
|
|
63
|
|
Dauphin County
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Secure/ Staff Secure
|
|
January 2009
|
|
2 years
|
|
N/A
|
|
Manage Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Peaks Regional Treatment Center Canon City, CO
|
|
136
|
|
Various
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Staff Secure
|
|
2004
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southwood Interventions Chicago, IL
|
|
128
|
|
IL DASA, City of Chicago, Medicaid, Private
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Staff Secure
|
|
1999
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas Adolescent Treatment Center San Antonio, TX
|
|
145
|
|
Idle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington DC Facility Washington, DC(8)
|
|
70
|
|
Idle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodridge Interventions Woodridge, IL
|
|
90
|
|
IL DASA, Medicaid, Private
|
|
Youth Residential Facility
|
|
Staff Secure
|
|
1999
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-residential Facilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abraxas Counseling Center Columbus, OH
|
|
78
|
|
Various
|
|
Youth Non-residential Service Center
|
|
Open
|
|
2008
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware Community-Based Programs Milford, DE
|
|
66
|
|
State of Delaware
|
|
Youth Non-residential Service Center
|
|
Open
|
|
1994
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harrisburg Community-Based Programs Harrisburg, PA
|
|
136
|
|
Dauphin or Cumberland Counties
|
|
Youth Non-residential Service Center
|
|
Open
|
|
1995
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lehigh Valley Community-Based Programs Lehigh Valley, PA
|
|
60
|
|
Lehigh and Northampton Counties
|
|
Youth Non-residential Service Center
|
|
Open
|
|
1987
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LifeWorks Interventions J oliet, IL
|
|
231
|
|
IL DASA, Medicaid, Private
|
|
Youth Non-residential Service Center
|
|
Open
|
|
1999
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia Community-Based Programs Philadelphia, PA
|
|
236
|
|
City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia School District
|
|
Youth Non-residential Service Center
|
|
Open
|
|
1994
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WorkBridge Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
600
|
|
Allegheny County
|
|
Youth Non-residential Service Center
|
|
Open
|
|
1987
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
York County Juvenile Drug Court Programs Harrisburg, PA
|
|
36
|
|
YCCYS
|
|
Youth Non-residential Service Center
|
|
Open
|
|
1995
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
Lease
|
21
Customer
Legend:
|
|
|
Abbreviation
|
|
Customer
|
|
AZ DOC
|
|
Arizona Department of Corrections
|
AK DOC
|
|
Alaska Department of Corrections
|
BOP
|
|
Federal Bureau of Prisons
|
CDCR
|
|
California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
|
CDE
|
|
Colorado Department of Education
|
CO DHS DYC
|
|
Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Youth
Corrections
|
DCF
|
|
Florida Department of Children & Families
|
DMS
|
|
Florida Department of Management Services
|
GDOC
|
|
Georgia Department of Corrections
|
ICE
|
|
U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
|
IDOC
|
|
Indiana Department of Correction
|
IGA
|
|
Intergovernmental Agreement
|
IL DASA
|
|
Illinois Department of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse
|
LA DPS&C
|
|
Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections
|
LEDD
|
|
LaSalle Economic Development District
|
MC
|
|
Montgomery County
|
MS DOC
|
|
Mississippi Department of Corrections (East Mississippi &
Marshall County)
|
NMCD
|
|
New Mexico Corrections Department
|
NSW
|
|
Commissioner of Corrective Services for New South Wales
|
OK DOC
|
|
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
|
OFDT
|
|
Office of Federal Detention Trustee
|
PA BSCF
|
|
Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Bureau of State
Children and Families
|
PA DHS CY
|
|
Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, Children and Youth
Division
|
PA DPW
|
|
Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare
|
PBC
|
|
Palm Beach County
|
PNB
|
|
Province of New Brunswick
|
QLD DCS
|
|
Department of Corrective Services of the State of Queensland
|
RSA DCS
|
|
Republic of South Africa Department of Correctional Services
|
SCDOH
|
|
South Carolina Department of Health
|
TDCJ
|
|
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
|
TDFPS
|
|
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
|
TYC
|
|
Texas Youth Commission
|
USMS
|
|
United States Marshals Service
|
USPO
|
|
United States Probation Office
|
VA DOC
|
|
Virginia Department of Corrections
|
VIC CC
|
|
The Chief Commissioner of the Victoria Police
|
VIC CV
|
|
The State of Victoria represented by Corrections Victoria
|
VIC DOJ
|
|
Department of Justice of the State of Victoria
|
YCCYS
|
|
York County Human Services Division, Children and Youth Services
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Capacity as used in the table refers to design capacity
consisting of total beds for all facilities except for the eight
Non-residential service centers under Youth Services for which
we have provided service capacity which represents the number of
juveniles that can be serviced daily. |
|
(2) |
|
GEO provides services at these facilities through various
Inter-Governmental Agreements, or IGAs, through the various
counties and other jurisdictions. |
|
(3) |
|
The full term of this contract expired in December 2009 and was
extended until December 12, 2011. |
|
(4) |
|
The contract for this facility only requires GEO to provide
maintenance services. |
|
(5) |
|
GEO provides comprehensive healthcare services to nine
government-operated prisons under this contract. |
22
|
|
|
(6) |
|
These facilities are owned by Municipal Corrections Finance,
L.P., our variable interest entity. |
|
(7) |
|
For Youth Services Residential Facilities and Non-residential
Service Centers, the contract commencement date represents
either the program start date or the date that the facility
operations were acquired by Cornell. The service agreements
under these arrangements, with the exception of Schaffner Youth
Center, provide for services on an as-contracted basis and there
are no guaranteed minimum populations or management contracts
with specified renewal dates. These arrangements are more
perpetual in nature. |
|
(8) |
|
This facility is classified as held for sale as of
January 2, 2011. |
|
(9) |
|
This contract was awarded during fiscal year 2010 and its terms
are under negotiation. |
Government
Contracts Terminations, Renewals and Competitive
Re-bids
Generally, we may lose our facility management contracts due to
one of three reasons: the termination by a government customer
with or without cause at any time; the failure by a customer to
renew a contract with us upon the expiration of the then current
term; or our failure to win the right to continue to operate
under a contract that has been competitively re-bid in a
procurement process upon its termination or expiration. Our
facility management contracts typically allow a contracting
governmental agency to terminate a contract with or without
cause at any time by giving us written notice ranging from 30 to
180 days. If government agencies were to use these
provisions to terminate, or renegotiate the terms of their
agreements with us, our financial condition and results of
operations could be materially adversely affected. See
Risk Factors We are subject to the loss
of our facility management contracts due to terminations,
non-renewals or competitive re- bids, which could adversely
affect our results of operations and liquidity, including our
ability to secure new facility management contracts from other
government customers.
Aside from our customers unilateral right to terminate our
facility management contracts with them at any time for any
reason, there are two points during the typical lifecycle of a
contract which may result in the loss by us of a facility
management contract with our customers. We refer to these points
as contract renewals and contract
re-bids. Many of our facility management contracts
with our government customers have an initial fixed term and
subsequent renewal rights for one or more additional periods at
the unilateral option of the customer. Because most of our
contracts for youth services do not guarantee placement or
revenue, we do not consider these contracts to ever be in the
renewal or re-bid stage since they are more perpetual in nature.
As such, they are not considered in the table below. We count
each government customers right to renew a particular
facility management contract for an additional period as a
separate renewal. For example, a five-year initial
fixed term contract with customer options to renew for five
separate additional one-year periods would, if fully exercised,
be counted as five separate renewals, with one renewal coming in
each of the five years following the initial term. As of
January 2, 2011, 32 of our facility management contracts
representing 19,450 beds are scheduled to expire on or before
January 1, 2012, unless renewed by the customer at its sole
option in certain cases, or unless renewed by mutual agreement
in other cases. These contracts represented 21.5% of our
consolidated revenues for the fiscal year ended January 2,
2011. We undertake substantial efforts to renew our facility
management contracts. Our historical facility management
contract renewal rate exceeds 90%. However, given their
unilateral nature, we cannot assure you that our customers will
in fact exercise their renewal options under existing contracts.
In addition, in connection with contract renewals, either we or
the contracting government agency have typically requested
changes or adjustments to contractual terms. As a result,
contract renewals may be made on terms that are more or less
favorable to us than those in existence prior to the renewals.
We define competitive re-bids as contracts currently under our
management which we believe, based on our experience with the
customer and the facility involved, will be re-bid to us and
other potential service providers in a competitive procurement
process upon the expiration or termination of our contract,
assuming all renewal options are exercised. Our determination of
which contracts we believe will be competitively re-bid may in
some cases be subjective and judgmental, based largely on our
knowledge of the dynamics involving a particular contract, the
customer and the facility involved. Competitive re-bids may
result from the expiration of the term of a contract, including
the initial fixed term plus any renewal periods, or the early
termination of a contract by a customer. Competitive re-bids are
often required by applicable federal or state procurement laws
periodically in order to encourage competitive pricing and other
terms for the government
23
customer. Potential bidders in competitive re-bid situations
include us, other private operators and other government
entities. While we are pleased with our historical win rate on
competitive re-bids and are committed to continuing to bid
competitively on appropriate future competitive re-bid
opportunities, we cannot in fact assure you that we will prevail
in future competitive re-bid situations. Also, we cannot assure
you that any competitive re-bids we win will be on terms more
favorable to us than those in existence with respect to the
expiring contract.
As of January 2, 2011, 15 of our facility management
contracts representing 7.6% and $96.3 million of our fiscal
year 2010 consolidated revenues are subject to competitive
re-bid in 2011. The following table sets forth the number of
facility management contracts that we currently believe will be
subject to competitive re-bid in each of the next five years and
thereafter, and the total number of beds relating to those
potential competitive re-bid situations during each period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Re-bid
|
|
|
Total Number of Beds up for Re-bid
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
5,768
|
|
2012
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
4,881
|
|
2013
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
842
|
|
2014
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
4,816
|
|
2015
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
5,498
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
34,263
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
79
|
|
|
|
56,068
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competition
We compete primarily on the basis of the quality and range of
services we offer; our experience domestically and
internationally in the design, construction, and management of
privatized correctional and detention facilities; our
reputation; and our pricing. We compete directly with the public
sector, where governmental agencies responsible for the
operation of correctional, detention, youth services, community
based services, and mental health, residential treatment and
re-entry facilities are often seeking to retain projects that
might otherwise be privatized. In the private sector, our
U.S. Detention & Corrections and International
Services business segments compete with a number of companies,
including, but not limited to: Corrections Corporation of
America; Management and Training Corporation; Louisiana
Corrections Services, Inc.; Emerald Companies; Community
Education Centers; LaSalle Southwest Corrections; Group 4
Securicor; Sodexo Justice Services (formerly Kaylx); and Serco.
Our GEO Care business segment competes with a number of
different
small-to-medium
sized companies, reflecting the highly fragmented nature of the
youth services, community based services, and mental health and
residential treatment services industry. BIs electronic
monitoring business segment competes with a number of companies,
including, but not limited to: G4 Justice Services, LLC;
Elmo-Tech, a 3M Company; and Pro-Tech, a 3M Company. Some of our
competitors are larger and have more resources than we do. We
also compete in some markets with small local companies that may
have a better knowledge of the local conditions and may be
better able to gain political and public acceptance.
Employees
and Employee Training
At January 2, 2011, we had 19,352 full-time employees.
Of our full-time employees, 433 were employed at our
headquarters and regional offices and 18,919 were employed at
facilities and international offices. We employ personnel in
positions of management, administrative and clerical, security,
educational services, human services, health services and
general maintenance at our various locations. Approximately
1,574 and 1,669 employees are covered by collective
bargaining agreements in the United States and at international
offices, respectively. We believe that our relations with our
employees are satisfactory.
Under the laws applicable to most of our operations, and
internal company policies, our correctional officers are
required to complete a minimum amount of training. We generally
require at least 40 hours of pre-service training before an
employee is allowed to assume their duties plus an additional
120 hours of training
24
during their first year of employment in our domestic
facilities, consistent with ACA standards
and/or
applicable state laws. In addition to the usual 160 hours
of training in the first year, most states require 40 or
80 hours of
on-the-job
training. Florida law requires that correctional officers
receive 520 hours of training. We believe that our training
programs meet or exceed all applicable requirements.
Our training program for domestic facilities typically begins
with approximately 40 hours of instruction regarding our
policies, operational procedures and management philosophy.
Training continues with an additional 120 hours of
instruction covering legal issues, rights of inmates, techniques
of communication and supervision, interpersonal skills and job
training relating to the particular position to be held. Each of
our employees who has contact with inmates receives a minimum of
40 hours of additional training each year, and each manager
receives at least 24 hours of training each year.
At least 160 hours of training are required for our
employees in Australia and South Africa before such employees
are allowed to work in positions that will bring them into
contact with inmates. Our employees in Australia and South
Africa receive a minimum of 40 hours of refresher training
each year. In the United Kingdom, our corrections employees also
receive a minimum of 240 hours prior to coming in contact
with inmates and receive additional training of approximately
25 hours annually.
Business
Regulations and Legal Considerations
Many governmental agencies are required to enter into a
competitive bidding procedure before awarding contracts for
products or services. The laws of certain jurisdictions may also
require us to award subcontracts on a competitive basis or to
subcontract or partner with businesses owned by women or members
of minority groups.
Certain states, such as Florida, deem correctional officers to
be peace officers and require our personnel to be licensed and
subject to background investigation. State law also typically
requires correctional officers to meet certain training
standards.
The failure to comply with any applicable laws, rules or
regulations or the loss of any required license could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations. Furthermore, our current and future
operations may be subject to additional regulations as a result
of, among other factors, new statutes and regulations and
changes in the manner in which existing statutes and regulations
are or may be interpreted or applied. Any such additional
regulations could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations.
Insurance
The nature of our business exposes us to various types of
third-party legal claims, including, but not limited to, civil
rights claims relating to conditions of confinement
and/or
mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or
detainees, medical malpractice claims, product liability claims,
intellectual property infringement claims, claims relating to
employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment
discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour
claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile
liability claims, contractual claims and claims for personal
injury or other damages resulting from contact with our
facilities, programs, electronic monitoring products, personnel
or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoners
escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. In addition,
our management contracts generally require us to indemnify the
governmental agency against any damages to which the
governmental agency may be subject in connection with such
claims or litigation. We maintain a broad program of insurance
coverage for these general types of claims, except for claims
relating to employment matters, for which we carry no insurance.
There can be no assurance that our insurance coverage will be
adequate to cover all claims to which we may be exposed. It is
our general practice to bring merged or acquired companies into
our corporate master policies in order to take advantage of
certain economies of scale.
We currently maintain a general liability policy and excess
liability policy for U.S. Detention & Corrections, GEO
Cares Community-Based Services, GEO Cares Youth
Services and BI, Inc. with limits of
25
$62.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. A
separate $35.0 million limit applies to medical
professional liability claims arising out of correctional
healthcare services. Our wholly owned subsidiary, GEO Care,
Inc., has a separate insurance program for their residential
services division, with a specific loss limit of
$35.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate with
respect to general liability and medical professional liability.
We are uninsured for any claims in excess of these limits. We
also maintain insurance to cover property and other casualty
risks including, workers compensation, environmental
liability and automobile liability.
For most casualty insurance policies, we carry substantial
deductibles or self-insured retentions
$3.0 million per occurrence for general liability and
hospital professional liability, $2.0 million per
occurrence for workers compensation and $1.0 million
per occurrence for automobile liability. In addition, certain of
our facilities located in Florida and other high-risk hurricane
areas carry substantial windstorm deductibles. Since hurricanes
are considered unpredictable future events, no reserves have
been established to pre-fund for potential windstorm damage.
Limited commercial availability of certain types of insurance
relating to windstorm exposure in coastal areas and earthquake
exposure mainly in California may prevent us from insuring some
of our facilities to full replacement value.
With respect to our operations in South Africa, the United
Kingdom and Australia, we utilize a combination of
locally-procured insurance and global policies to meet
contractual insurance requirements and protect the Company. Our
Australian subsidiary is required to carry tail insurance on a
general liability policy providing an extended reporting period
through 2011 related to a discontinued contract.
Of the reserves discussed above, our most significant insurance
reserves relate to workers compensation and general
liability claims. These reserves are undiscounted and were
$40.2 million and $27.2 million as of January 2,
2011 and January 3, 2010, respectively. We use statistical
and actuarial methods to estimate amounts for claims that have
been reported but not paid and claims incurred but not reported.
In applying these methods and assessing their results, we
consider such factors as historical frequency and severity of
claims at each of our facilities, claim development, payment
patterns and changes in the nature of our business, among other
factors. Such factors are analyzed for each of our business
segments. Our estimates may be impacted by such factors as
increases in the market price for medical services and
unpredictability of the size of jury awards. We also may
experience variability between our estimates and the actual
settlement due to limitations inherent in the estimation
process, including our ability to estimate costs of processing
and settling claims in a timely manner as well as our ability to
accurately estimate our exposure at the onset of a claim.
Because we have high deductible insurance policies, the amount
of our insurance expense is dependent on our ability to control
our claims experience. If actual losses related to insurance
claims significantly differ from our estimates, our financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows could be
materially adversely impacted.
International
Operations
Our international operations for fiscal years 2010 and 2009
consisted of the operations of our wholly-owned Australian
subsidiaries, our wholly owned subsidiary in the United Kingdom,
and South African Custodial Management Pty. Limited, our
consolidated joint venture in South Africa, which we refer to as
SACM. In Australia, our wholly-owned subsidiary, GEO Australia,
currently manages four facilities and provides comprehensive
healthcare services to nine government operated prisons. We
operate one facility in South Africa through SACM. During Fourth
Quarter 2004, we opened an office in the United Kingdom to
pursue new business opportunities throughout Europe. On
June 29, 2009, GEO UK assumed management functions of the
260-bed Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre in London,
England. The Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre was
expanded by 360 beds during fiscal year 2010 and is managed by
our subsidiary under a three-year contract. See Item 7 for
more discussion related to the results of our international
operations. Financial information about our operations in
different geographic regions appears in Item 8.
Financial Statements Note 18 Business Segment
and Geographic Information.
26
Business
Concentration
Except for the major customers noted in the following table, no
other single customer made up greater than 10% of our
consolidated revenues, excluding discontinued operations, for
these years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Various agencies of the U.S Federal Government:
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
31
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
Various agencies of the State of Florida:
|
|
|
14
|
%
|
|
|
16
|
%
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
Available
Information
Additional information about us can be found at
www.geogroup.com. We make available on our website, free
of charge, access to our Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q,
Current Reports on
Form 8-K,
our annual proxy statement on Schedule 14A and amendments
to those materials filed or furnished pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after we
electronically submit such materials to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, or the SEC. In addition, the SEC makes
available on its website, free of charge, reports, proxy and
information statements, and other information regarding issuers
that file electronically with the SEC, including GEO. The
SECs website is located at
http://www.sec.gov.
Information provided on our website or on the SECs website
is not part of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
The following are certain risks to which our business operations
are subject. Any of these risks could materially adversely
affect our business, financial condition, or results of
operations. These risks could also cause our actual results to
differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking
statements contained herein and elsewhere. The risks
described below are not the only risks we face. Additional risks
not currently known to us or those we currently deem to be
immaterial may also materially and adversely affect our business
operations.
Risks
Related to Our High Level of Indebtedness
Our
significant level of indebtedness could adversely affect our
financial condition and prevent us from fulfilling our debt
service obligations.
We have a significant amount of indebtedness. Our total
consolidated indebtedness as of January 2, 2011 was
$807.8 million, excluding non-recourse debt of
$222.7 million and capital lease obligations of
$14.5 million. As of January 2, 2011, we had
$57.0 million outstanding in letters of credit and
$212.0 million in borrowings outstanding under the
Revolver. Our total consolidated indebtedness as of
February 10, 2011, upon consummation of the BI Acquisition
and following the execution of Amendment No. 1 to the
Senior Credit Facility, which included an additional
$150.0 million of term loans and an increase of
$100.0 million revolving credit commitments, was
$1,251.4 million, excluding non-recourse debt of
$216.8 million and capital lease obligations of
$14.3 million. As of February 10, 2011, we had
$210.0 million in borrowings under the Revolver.
Consequently, as of February 10, 2011, we had the ability
to borrow $233.8 million under our Revolver.
Our substantial indebtedness could have important consequences.
For example, it could:
|
|
|
|
|
require us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow
from operations to payments on our indebtedness, thereby
reducing the availability of our cash flow to fund working
capital, capital expenditures, and other general corporate
purposes;
|
|
|
|
limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes
in our business and the industry in which we operate;
|
|
|
|
increase our vulnerability to adverse economic and industry
conditions;
|
|
|
|
place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to competitors
that may be less leveraged; and
|
|
|
|
limit our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance
existing indebtedness on favorable terms.
|
27
If we are unable to meet our debt service obligations, we may
need to reduce capital expenditures, restructure or refinance
our indebtedness, obtain additional equity financing or sell
assets. We may be unable to restructure or refinance our
indebtedness, obtain additional equity financing or sell assets
on satisfactory terms or at all. In addition, our ability to
incur additional indebtedness will be restricted by the terms of
our senior credit facility, the indenture governing the
73/4% senior
notes and the indenture governing the 6.625% senior notes.
We are
incurring significant indebtedness in connection with
substantial ongoing capital expenditures. Capital expenditures
for existing and future projects may materially strain our
liquidity.
As of January 2, 2011, we were developing a number of
projects that we estimate will cost approximately
$282.4 million, of which $54.9 million was spent
through January 2, 2011. We estimate our remaining capital
requirements to be approximately $227.5 million, which we
anticipate will be spent in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Capital
expenditures related to facility maintenance costs are expected
to range between $20.0 million and $25.0 million for
fiscal year 2011. We intend to finance these and future projects
using our own funds, including cash on hand, cash flow from
operations and borrowings under the revolver portion of our
Senior Credit Facility. In addition to these current estimated
capital requirements for 2011, we are currently in the process
of bidding on, or evaluating potential bids for the design,
construction and management of a number of new projects. In the
event that we win bids for these projects and decide to
self-finance their construction, our capital requirements in
2011 could materially increase. As of January 2, 2011, we
had the ability to borrow $131.0 million under the revolver
portion of our Senior Credit Facility subject to our satisfying
the relevant borrowing conditions under the Senior Credit
Facility. As of February 10, 2011, upon consummation of the
BI Acquisition and following the execution of Amendment
No. 1 to the senior credit facility, our obtaining an
additional $150.0 million of term loans and an increase of
$100.0 million aggregate principal amount of revolving
credit commitments under the Senior Credit Facility, we had the
ability to borrow $233.8 million under the revolver portion of
our Senior Credit Facility subject to our satisfying the
relevant borrowing conditions thereunder. In addition, we have
the ability to borrow $250.0 million under the accordion
feature of our Senior Credit Facility subject to lender demand
and prevailing market conditions and satisfying the relevant
borrowing conditions thereunder. While we believe we currently
have adequate borrowing capacity under our Senior Credit
Facility to fund our operations and all of our committed capital
expenditure projects, we may need additional borrowings or
financing from other sources in order to complete potential
capital expenditures related to new projects in the future. We
cannot assure you that such borrowings or financing will be made
available to us on satisfactory terms, or at all. In addition,
the large capital commitments that these projects will require
over the next
12-18 month
period may materially strain our liquidity and our borrowing
capacity for other purposes. Capital constraints caused by these
projects may also cause us to have to entirely refinance our
existing indebtedness or incur more indebtedness. Such financing
may have terms less favorable than those we currently have in
place, or not be available to us at all. In addition, the
concurrent development of these and other large capital projects
exposes us to material risks. For example, we may not complete
some or all of the projects on time or on budget, which could
cause us to absorb any losses associated with any delays.
Despite
current indebtedness levels, we may still incur more
indebtedness, which could further exacerbate the risks described
above.
The terms of the indenture governing the
73/4% senior
notes, the indenture governing the 6.625% senior notes and
our Senior Credit Facility restrict our ability to incur but do
not prohibit us from incurring significant additional
indebtedness in the future. As of January 2, 2011, we had
the ability to borrow an additional $131.0 million under
the revolver portion of our Senior Credit Facility, subject to
our satisfying the relevant borrowing conditions under the
Senior Credit Facility. As of February 10, 2011, upon
consummation of the BI Acquisition and following the execution
of Amendment No. 1 to the Senior Credit Facility, our
obtaining an additional $150.0 million of term loans and an
increase of $100.0 million aggregate principal amount of
revolving credit commitments under the Senior Credit Facility,
we had the ability to borrow $233.8 million under the revolver
portion of our Senior Credit Facility subject to our satisfying
the relevant borrowing conditions thereunder. We also would have
had the ability to borrow an additional $250.0 million
under the accordion feature of our senior credit facility
subject to lender demand, prevailing market conditions and
28
satisfying relevant borrowing conditions. Also, we may refinance
all or a portion of our indebtedness, including borrowings under
our Senior Credit Facility, the
73/4% Senior
Notes and/or
the 6.625% Senior Notes. The terms of such refinancing may
be less restrictive and permit us to incur more indebtedness
than we can now. If new indebtedness is added to our and our
subsidiaries current debt levels, the related risks that
we and they now face related to our significant level of
indebtedness could intensify.
The
covenants in the indenture governing the
73/4% Senior
Notes, the indenture governing the 6.625% Senior Notes and
our Senior Credit Facility impose significant operating and
financial restrictions which may adversely affect our ability to
operate our business.
The indenture governing the
73/4% Senior
Notes, the indenture governing the 6.625% Senior Notes and
our Senior Credit Facility impose significant operating and
financial restrictions on us and certain of our subsidiaries,
which we refer to as restricted subsidiaries. These restrictions
limit our ability to, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
incur additional indebtedness;
|
|
|
|
pay dividends and or distributions on our capital stock,
repurchase, redeem or retire our capital stock, prepay
subordinated indebtedness, make investments;
|
|
|
|
issue preferred stock of subsidiaries;
|
|
|
|
guarantee other indebtedness;
|
|
|
|
create liens on our assets;
|
|
|
|
transfer and sell assets;
|
|
|
|
make capital expenditures above certain limits;
|
|
|
|
create or permit restrictions on the ability of our restricted
subsidiaries to make dividends or make other distributions to us;
|
|
|
|
enter into sale/leaseback transactions;
|
|
|
|
enter into transactions with affiliates; and
|
|
|
|
merge or consolidate with another company or sell all or
substantially all of our assets.
|
These restrictions could limit our ability to finance our future
operations or capital needs, make acquisitions or pursue
available business opportunities. In addition, our Senior Credit
Facility requires us to maintain specified financial ratios and
satisfy certain financial covenants, including maintaining
maximum senior secured leverage ratio and total leverage ratios,
and a minimum interest coverage ratio. Some of these financial
ratios become more restrictive over the life of the senior
credit facility. We may be required to take action to reduce our
indebtedness or to act in a manner contrary to our business
objectives to meet these ratios and satisfy these covenants. We
could also incur additional indebtedness having even more
restrictive covenants. Our failure to comply with any of the
covenants under our senior credit facility, the indenture
governing the
73/4% Senior
Notes and the indenture governing the 6.625% Senior Notes
or any other indebtedness could prevent us from being able to
draw on the revolver portion of our senior credit facility,
cause an event of default under such documents and result in an
acceleration of all of our outstanding indebtedness. If all of
our outstanding indebtedness were to be accelerated, we likely
would not be able to simultaneously satisfy all of our
obligations under such indebtedness, which would materially
adversely affect our financial condition and results of
operations.
Servicing
our indebtedness will require a significant amount of cash. Our
ability to generate cash depends on many factors beyond our
control.
Our ability to make payments on our indebtedness and to fund
planned capital expenditures will depend on our ability to
generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is
subject to general economic, financial, competitive,
legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our
control.
29
Our business may not be able to generate sufficient cash flow
from operations or future borrowings may not be available to us
under our Senior Credit Facility or otherwise in an amount
sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness or debt
securities, including the
73/4% Senior
Notes and the 6.625% Senior Notes, or to fund our other
liquidity needs. As a result, we may need to refinance all or a
portion of our indebtedness on or before maturity. However, we
may not be able to complete such refinancing on commercially
reasonable terms or at all.
Because
portions of our senior indebtedness have floating interest
rates, a general increase in interest rates will adversely
affect cash flows.
Borrowings under our Senior Credit Facility bear interest at a
variable rate. As a result, to the extent our exposure to
increases in interest rates is not eliminated through interest
rate protection agreements, such increases will result in higher
debt service costs which will adversely affect our cash flows.
We currently do not have interest rate protection agreements in
place to protect against interest rate fluctuations on
borrowings under our Senior Credit Facility. As of
January 2, 2011 we had $557.8 million of indebtedness
outstanding under our Senior Credit Facility (net of discount of
$1.9 million), and a one percent increase in the interest
rate applicable to the Senior Credit Facility would increase our
annual interest expense by $5.6 million.
We
depend on distributions from our subsidiaries to make payments
on our indebtedness. These distributions may not be
made.
A substantial portion of our business is conducted by our
subsidiaries. Therefore, our ability to meet our payment
obligations on our indebtedness is substantially dependent on
the earnings of certain of our subsidiaries and the payment of
funds to us by our subsidiaries as dividends, loans, advances or
other payments. Our subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal
entities and, unless they expressly guarantee any indebtedness
of ours, they are not obligated to make funds available for
payment of our indebtedness in the form of loans, distributions
or otherwise. Our subsidiaries ability to make any such
loans, distributions or other payments to us will depend on
their earnings, business results, the terms of their existing
and any future indebtedness, tax considerations and legal or
contractual restrictions to which they may be subject. If our
subsidiaries do not make such payments to us, our ability to
repay our indebtedness may be materially adversely affected. For
the year ended January 2, 2011, our subsidiaries accounted
for 58.9% of our consolidated revenues, and as of
January 2, 2011, our subsidiaries accounted for 77.2% of
our total assets.
Risks
Related to Our Business and Industry
From
time to time, we may not have a management contract with a
client to operate existing beds at a facility or new beds at a
facility that we are expanding and we cannot assure you that
such a contract will be obtained. Failure to obtain a management
contract for these beds will subject us to carrying costs with
no corresponding management revenue.
From time to time, we may not have a management contract with a
client to operate existing beds or new beds at facilities that
we are currently in the process of renovating and expanding.
While we will always strive to work diligently with a number of
different customers for the use of these beds, we cannot assure
you that a contract for the beds will be secured on a timely
basis, or at all. While a facility or new beds at a facility are
vacant, we incur carrying costs. Failure to secure a management
contract for a facility or expansion project could have a
material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of
operations
and/or cash
flows. In addition, in order to secure a management contract for
these beds, we may need to incur significant capital
expenditures to renovate or further expand the facility to meet
potential clients needs.
Negative
conditions in the capital markets could prevent us from
obtaining financing, which could materially harm our
business.
Our ability to obtain additional financing is highly dependent
on the conditions of the capital markets, among other things.
The capital and credit markets have been experiencing
significant volatility and disruption since 2008. The downturn
in the equity and debt markets, the tightening of the credit
markets, the general economic slowdown and other macroeconomic
conditions, such as the current global economic environment
30
could prevent us from raising additional capital or obtaining
additional financing on satisfactory terms, or at all. If we
need, but cannot obtain, adequate capital as a result of
negative conditions in the capital markets or otherwise, our
business, results of operations and financial condition could be
materially adversely affected. Additionally, such inability to
obtain capital could prevent us from pursuing attractive
business development opportunities, including new facility
constructions or expansions of existing facilities, and business
or asset acquisitions.
We are
subject to the loss of our facility management contracts, due to
terminations, non-renewals or competitive re-bids, which could
adversely affect our results of operations and liquidity,
including our ability to secure new facility management
contracts from other government customers.
We are exposed to the risk that we may lose our facility
management contracts primarily due to one of three reasons: the
termination by a government customer with or without cause at
any time; the failure by a customer to exercise its unilateral
option to renew a contract with us upon the expiration of the
then current term; or our failure to win the right to continue
to operate under a contract that has been competitively re-bid
in a procurement process upon its termination or expiration.
BIs business is also subject to the risk that it may lose
contracts as a result of termination by a government customer,
non-renewal by a government customer or the failure to win a
competitive re-bid of a contract. Our facility management
contracts typically allow a contracting governmental agency to
terminate a contract with or without cause at any time by giving
us written notice ranging from 30 to 180 days. If
government agencies were to use these provisions to terminate,
or renegotiate the terms of their agreements with us, our
financial condition and results of operations could be
materially adversely affected.
Aside from our customers unilateral right to terminate our
facility management contracts with them at any time for any
reason, there are two points during the typical lifecycle of a
contract which may result in the loss by us of a facility
management contract with our customers. We refer to these points
as contract renewals and contract
re-bids. Many of our facility management contracts
with our government customers have an initial fixed term and
subsequent renewal rights for one or more additional periods at
the unilateral option of the customer. Because most of our
contracts for youth services do not guarantee placement or
revenue, we have not considered youth services in the re-bid and
renewal rates. We count each government customers right to
renew a particular facility management contract for an
additional period as a separate renewal. For
example, a five-year initial fixed term contract with customer
options to renew for five separate additional one-year periods
would, if fully exercised, be counted as five separate renewals,
with one renewal coming in each of the five years following the
initial term. As of January 2, 2011, 32 of our facility
management contracts representing 19,450 beds are scheduled to
expire on or before January 1, 2012, unless renewed by the
customer at its sole option in certain cases, or unless renewed
by mutual agreement in other cases. These contracts represented
21.5% of our consolidated revenues for the year ended
January 2, 2011. We undertake substantial efforts to renew
our facility management contracts. Our historical facility
management contract renewal rate exceeds 90%. However, given
their unilateral nature, we cannot assure you that our customers
will in fact exercise their renewal options under existing
contracts. In addition, in connection with contract renewals,
either we or the contracting government agency have typically
requested changes or adjustments to contractual terms. As a
result, contract renewals may be made on terms that are more or
less favorable to us than those in existence prior to the
renewals.
We define competitive re-bids as contracts currently under our
management which we believe, based on our experience with the
customer and the facility involved, will be re-bid to us and
other potential service providers in a competitive procurement
process upon the expiration or termination of our contract,
assuming all renewal options are exercised. Our determination of
which contracts we believe will be competitively re- bid may in
some cases be subjective and judgmental, based largely on our
knowledge of the dynamics involving a particular contract, the
customer and the facility involved. Competitive re-bids may
result from the expiration of the term of a contract, including
the initial fixed term plus any renewal periods, or the early
termination of a contract by a customer. Competitive re-bids are
often required by applicable federal or state procurement laws
periodically in order to further competitive pricing and other
terms for the government
31
customer. Potential bidders in competitive re-bid situations
include us, other private operators and other government
entities.
As of January 2, 2011, 15 of our facility management
contracts representing $96.3 million (or 7.6%) of our
consolidated revenues for the year ended January 2, 2011
are subject to competitive re-bid in 2011. While we are pleased
with our historical win rate on competitive re-bids and are
committed to continuing to bid competitively on appropriate
future competitive re-bid opportunities, we cannot in fact
assure you that we will prevail in future re-bid situations.
Also, we cannot assure you that any competitive re-bids we win
will be on terms more favorable to us than those in existence
with respect to the expiring contract.
For additional information on facility management contracts that
we currently believe will be competitively re-bid during each of
the next five years and thereafter, please see
Business Government Contracts
Terminations, Renewals and Competitive Re-bids. The loss
by us of facility management contracts due to terminations,
non-renewals or competitive re-bids could materially adversely
affect our financial condition, results of operations and
liquidity, including our ability to secure new facility
management contracts from other government customers. The loss
by BI of contracts with government customers due to
terminations, non-renewals or competitive re-bids could
materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of
operations and liquidity, including our ability to secure new
contracts from other government customers.
We may
not fully realize the anticipated synergies and related benefits
of acquisitions or we may not fully realize the anticipated
synergies within the anticipated timing.
We may not be able to achieve the anticipated operating and cost
synergies or long-term strategic benefits of our acquisitions
within the anticipated timing or at all. For example,
elimination of duplicative costs may not be fully achieved or
may take longer than anticipated. For at least the first year
after a substantial acquisition, and possibly longer, the
benefits from the acquisition will be offset by the costs
incurred in integrating the businesses and operations. We
anticipate annual synergies of approximately
$12-$15 million as a result of the Cornell Acquisition and
annual synergies of approximately $3-$5 million as a result
of the BI Acquisition. An inability to realize the full extent
of, or any of, the anticipated synergies or other benefits of
the Cornell Acquisition, the BI Acquisition, or any other
acquisition as well as any delays that may be encountered in the
integration process, which may delay the timing of such
synergies or other benefits, could have an adverse effect on our
business and results of operations.
We
will incur significant transaction- and integration-related
costs in connection with the Cornell Acquisition and the BI
Acquisition.
We expect to incur non-recurring costs associated with combining
the operations of Cornell and BI with our operations, including
charges and payments to be made to some of their employees
pursuant to change in control contractual
obligations. Although a substantial majority of non-recurring
expenses are comprised of transaction costs related to the two
acquisitions, there will be other costs related to facilities
and systems consolidation costs, fees and costs related to
formulating integration plans and costs to perform these
activities. Additional unanticipated costs may be incurred in
the integration of Cornells and BIs businesses. The
elimination of duplicative costs, as well as the realization of
other efficiencies related to the integration of Cornells
and BIs businesses discussed above, may not offset
incremental transaction- and other integration-related costs in
the near term.
As a
result of our acquisitions, our company has recorded and will
continue to record a significant amount of goodwill and other
intangible assets. In the future, the companys goodwill or
other intangible assets may become impaired, which could result
in material non-cash charges to its results of
operations.
We have a substantial amount of goodwill and other intangible
assets resulting from business acquisitions. As of
January 2, 2011 we had $332.8 million of goodwill and
other intangible assets. We expect that our acquisition of BI on
February 10, 2011 will also generate a substantial amount
of goodwill and other intangible assets. At least annually, or
whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate a potential
32
impairment in the carrying value as defined by GAAP, we will
evaluate this goodwill for impairment based on the fair value of
each reporting unit. Estimated fair values could change if there
are changes in the companys capital structure, cost of
debt, interest rates, capital expenditure levels, operating cash
flows, or market capitalization. Impairments of goodwill or
other intangible assets could require material non-cash charges
to our results of operations.
Our
growth depends on our ability to secure contracts to develop and
manage new correctional, detention and mental health facilities,
the demand for which is outside our control.
Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new
contracts to develop and manage new correctional, detention and
mental health facilities, because contracts to manage existing
public facilities have not to date typically been offered to
private operators. BIs growth is generally dependent upon
its ability to obtain new contracts to offer electronic
monitoring services, provide community-based re-entry services
and provide monitoring and supervision services. Public sector
demand for new privatized facilities in our areas of operation
may decrease and our potential for growth will depend on a
number of factors we cannot control, including overall economic
conditions, governmental and public acceptance of the concept of
privatization, government budgetary constraints, and the number
of facilities available for privatization.
In particular, the demand for our correctional and detention
facilities and services and BIs services could be
adversely affected by changes in existing criminal or
immigration laws, crime rates in jurisdictions in which we
operate, the relaxation of criminal or immigration enforcement
efforts, leniency in conviction, sentencing or deportation
practices, and the decriminalization of certain activities that
are currently proscribed by criminal laws or the loosening of
immigration laws. For example, any changes with respect to the
decriminalization of drugs and controlled substances could
affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, sentenced and
incarcerated, thereby potentially reducing demand for
correctional facilities to house them. Similarly, reductions in
crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and
sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.
Immigration reform laws which are currently a focus for
legislators and politicians at the federal, state and local
level also could materially adversely impact us. Various factors
outside our control could adversely impact the growth of our GEO
Care business, including government customer resistance to the
privatization of mental health or residential treatment
facilities, and changes to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement
programs.
We may
not be able to meet state requirements for capital investment or
locate land for the development of new facilities, which could
adversely affect our results of operations and future
growth.
Certain jurisdictions, including California, where we have a
significant amount of operations, have in the past required
successful bidders to make a significant capital investment in
connection with the financing of a particular project. If this
trend were to continue in the future, we may not be able to
obtain sufficient capital resources when needed to compete
effectively for facility management contracts. Additionally, our
success in obtaining new awards and contracts may depend, in
part, upon our ability to locate land that can be leased or
acquired under favorable terms. Otherwise desirable locations
may be in or near populated areas and, therefore, may generate
legal action or other forms of opposition from residents in
areas surrounding a proposed site. Our inability to secure
financing and desirable locations for new facilities could
adversely affect our results of operations and future growth.
We
depend on a limited number of governmental customers for a
significant portion of our revenues. The loss of, or a
significant decrease in business from, these customers could
seriously harm our financial condition and results of
operations.
We currently derive, and expect to continue to derive, a
significant portion of our revenues from a limited number of
governmental agencies. Of our governmental clients, three
customers accounted for over 50% of our consolidated revenues
for the year ended January 2, 2011. In addition, three
federal governmental agencies with correctional and detention
responsibilities, the Bureau of Prisons, ICE, and the
U.S. Marshals Service, accounted for 35.2% of our total
consolidated revenues for the year ended January 2, 2011,
with the Bureau of Prisons accounting for 9.5% of our total
consolidated revenues for such period, ICE accounting for 13.0%
of
33
our total consolidated revenues for such period, and the
U.S. Marshals Service accounting for 12.8% of our total
consolidated revenues for such period. Government agencies from
the State of Florida accounted for 13.7% of our total
consolidated revenues for the year ended January 2, 2011.
The loss of, or a significant decrease in, business from the
Bureau of Prisons, ICE, U.S. Marshals Service, the State of
Florida or any other significant customers could seriously harm
our financial condition and results of operations. We expect to
continue to depend upon these federal and state agencies and a
relatively small group of other governmental customers for a
significant percentage of our revenues.
A
decrease in occupancy levels could cause a decrease in revenues
and profitability.
While a substantial portion of our cost structure is generally
fixed, most of our revenues are generated under facility
management contracts which provide for per diem payments based
upon daily occupancy. Several of these contracts provide minimum
revenue guarantees for us, regardless of occupancy levels, up to
a specified maximum occupancy percentage. However, many of our
contracts have no minimum revenue guarantees and simply provide
for a fixed per diem payment for each inmate/detainee/patient
actually housed. As a result, with respect to our contracts that
have no minimum revenue guarantees and those that guarantee
revenues only up to a certain specified occupancy percentage, we
are highly dependent upon the governmental agencies with which
we have contracts to provide inmates, detainees and patients for
our managed facilities. Under a per diem rate structure, a
decrease in our occupancy rates could cause a decrease in
revenues and profitability. Recently, in California and Michigan
for example, there have been recommendations for the early
release of inmates to relieve overcrowding conditions. When
combined with relatively fixed costs for operating each
facility, regardless of the occupancy level, a material decrease
in occupancy levels at one or more of our facilities could have
a material adverse effect on our revenues and profitability, and
consequently, on our financial condition and results of
operations.
State
budgetary constraints may have a material adverse impact on
us.
While improving economic conditions have helped lower the number
of states reporting new fiscal year 2011 budget gaps and have
increased the number of states reporting stable revenue outlooks
for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, several states still face
ongoing budget shortfalls. According to the National Conference
of State Legislatures, fifteen states reported new gaps since
fiscal year 2011 began with the sum of these budget imbalances
totaling $26.7 billion as of November 2010. Additionally,
35 states currently project budget gaps in fiscal year
2012. At January 2, 2011, we had twelve state correctional
clients: Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana,
Virginia, Indiana, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, and
California. Recently, we have experienced a delay in cash
receipts from California and other states may follow suit. If
state budgetary constraints persist or intensify, our twelve
state customers ability to pay us may be impaired
and/or we
may be forced to renegotiate our management contracts with those
customers on less favorable terms and our financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows could be materially
adversely impacted. In addition, budgetary constraints at states
that are not our current customers could prevent those states
from outsourcing correctional, detention or mental health
service opportunities that we otherwise could have pursued.
Competition
for inmates may adversely affect the profitability of our
business.
We compete with government entities and other private operators
on the basis of cost, quality and range of services offered,
experience in managing facilities, and reputation of management
and personnel. Barriers to entering the market for the
management of correctional and detention facilities may not be
sufficient to limit additional competition in our industry. In
addition, some of our government customers may assume the
management of a facility currently managed by us upon the
termination of the corresponding management contract or, if such
customers have capacity at the facilities which they operate,
they may take inmates currently housed in our facilities and
transfer them to government operated facilities. Since we are
paid on a per diem basis with no minimum guaranteed occupancy
under some of our contracts, the loss of such inmates and
resulting decrease in occupancy could cause a decrease in both
our revenues and our profitability.
34
We are
dependent on government appropriations, which may not be made on
a timely basis or at all and may be adversely impacted by
budgetary constraints at the federal, state and local
levels.
Our cash flow is subject to the receipt of sufficient funding of
and timely payment by contracting governmental entities. If the
contracting governmental agency does not receive sufficient
appropriations to cover its contractual obligations, it may
terminate our contract or delay or reduce payment to us. Any
delays in payment, or the termination of a contract, could have
a material adverse effect on our cash flow and financial
condition, which may make it difficult to satisfy our payment
obligations on our indebtedness, including the
6.625% Senior Notes, the
73/4% Senior
Notes and the Senior Credit Facility, in a timely manner. In
addition, as a result of, among other things, recent economic
developments, federal, state and local governments have
encountered, and may continue to encounter, unusual budgetary
constraints. As a result, a number of state and local
governments are under pressure to control additional spending or
reduce current levels of spending which could limit or eliminate
appropriations for the facilities that we operate. Additionally,
as a result of these factors, we may be requested in the future
to reduce our existing per diem contract rates or forego
prospective increases to those rates. Budgetary limitations may
also make it more difficult for us to renew our existing
contracts on favorable terms or at all. Further, a number of
states in which we operate are experiencing significant budget
deficits for fiscal year 2011. We cannot assure that these
deficits will not result in reductions in per diems, delays in
payment for services rendered or unilateral termination of
contracts.
Public
resistance to privatization of correctional, detention, mental
health and residential facilities could result in our inability
to obtain new contracts or the loss of existing contracts, which
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operations.
The management and operation of correctional, detention, mental
health and residential facilities by private entities has not
achieved complete acceptance by either government agencies or
the public. Some governmental agencies have limitations on their
ability to delegate their traditional management
responsibilities for such facilities to private companies and
additional legislative changes or prohibitions could occur that
further increase these limitations. In addition, the movement
toward privatization of such facilities has encountered
resistance from groups, such as labor unions, that believe that
correctional, detention, mental health and residential
facilities should only be operated by governmental agencies.
Changes in governing political parties could also result in
significant changes to previously established views of
privatization. Increased public resistance to the privatization
of correctional, detention, mental health and residential
facilities in any of the markets in which we operate, as a
result of these or other factors, could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations.
Our
GEO Care business, which has become a material part of our
consolidated revenues, poses unique risks not associated with
our other businesses.
Our wholly-owned subsidiary, GEO Care, Inc., operates our mental
health and residential treatment services, youth services and
community-based services divisions. The GEO Care business
primarily involves the delivery of quality care, innovative
programming and active patient treatment services at state-owned
mental health care facilities, jails, sexually violent offender
facilities, community-based service facilities and long-term
care facilities. GEO Cares business has increased
substantially over the last few years, both in general and as a
percentage of our overall business. For the year ended
January 2, 2011, GEO Care generated $213.8 million in
revenues, representing 16.8% of our consolidated revenues from
continuing operations. GEO Cares business poses several
material risks unique to its operation that do not exist in our
core business of correctional and detention facilities
management, including, but not limited to, the following:
|
|
|
|
|
the concept of the privatization of the mental health and
residential treatment services provided by GEO Care has not yet
achieved general acceptance by either government agencies or the
public, which could materially limit GEO Cares growth
prospects;
|
|
|
|
GEO Cares business is highly dependent on the continuous
recruitment, hiring and retention of a substantial pool of
qualified psychiatrists, physicians, nurses and other medically
trained personnel as
|
35
|
|
|
|
|
well as counselors and social workers which may not be available
in the quantities or locations sought, or on the employment
terms offered;
|
|
|
|
|
|
GEO Cares business model often involves taking over
outdated or obsolete facilities and operating them while it
supervises the construction and development of new, more updated
facilities; during this transition period, GEO Care may be
particularly vulnerable to operational difficulties primarily
relating to or resulting from the deteriorating nature of the
older existing facilities; and
|
|
|
|
the facilities operated by GEO Care are substantially dependent
on government funding, including in some cases the receipt of
Medicare and Medicaid funding; the loss of such government
funding for any reason with respect to any facilities operated
by GEO Care could have a material adverse impact on our business.
|
The
Cornell Acquisition resulted in our re-entry into the market of
operating juvenile correctional facilities which may pose
certain unique or increased risks and difficulties compared to
other facilities.
As a result of the Cornell Acquisition, we have re-entered the
market of operating juvenile correctional facilities. We
intentionally exited this market a number of years ago.
Operating juvenile correctional facilities may pose increased
operational risks and difficulties that may result in increased
litigation, higher personnel costs, higher levels of turnover of
personnel and reduced profitability. Additionally, juvenile
services contracts related to educational services may provide
for annual collection several months after a school year is
completed. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in
operating juvenile correctional facilities or that we will be
able to minimize the risks and difficulties involved while
yielding an attractive profit margin.
Adverse
publicity may negatively impact our ability to retain existing
contracts and obtain new contracts.
Any negative publicity about an escape, riot or other
disturbance or perceived poor conditions at a privately managed
facility may result in publicity adverse to us and the private
corrections industry in general. Any of these occurrences or
continued trends may make it more difficult for us to renew
existing contracts or to obtain new contracts or could result in
the termination of an existing contract or the closure of one or
more of our facilities, which could have a material adverse
effect on our business. Such negative events may also result in
a significant increase in our liability insurance costs.
We may
incur significant
start-up and
operating costs on new contracts before receiving related
revenues, which may impact our cash flows and not be
recouped.
When we are awarded a contract to manage a facility, we may
incur significant
start-up and
operating expenses, including the cost of constructing the
facility, purchasing equipment and staffing the facility, before
we receive any payments under the contract. These expenditures
could result in a significant reduction in our cash reserves and
may make it more difficult for us to meet other cash
obligations, including our payment obligations on the
6.625% Senior Notes, the
73/4% Senior
Notes and the Senior Credit Facility. In addition, a contract
may be terminated prior to its scheduled expiration and as a
result we may not recover these expenditures or realize any
return on our investment.
Failure
to comply with extensive government regulation and applicable
contractual requirements could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition or results of
operations.
The industry in which we operate is subject to extensive
federal, state and local regulation, including educational,
environmental, health care and safety laws, rules and
regulations, which are administered by many regulatory
authorities. Some of the regulations are unique to the
corrections industry, and the combination of regulations affects
all areas of our operations. Corrections officers and juvenile
care workers are customarily required to meet certain training
standards and, in some instances, facility personnel are
required to be licensed and are subject to background
investigations. Certain jurisdictions also require us to award
subcontracts on a competitive basis or to subcontract with
businesses owned by members of minority groups. We may not
always successfully comply with these and other regulations to
which we are subject and failure to comply can result in
material penalties or the non-renewal or termination of facility
management contracts.
36
In addition, changes in existing regulations could require us to
substantially modify the manner in which we conduct our business
and, therefore, could have a material adverse effect on us.
In addition, private prison managers are increasingly subject to
government legislation and regulation attempting to restrict the
ability of private prison managers to house certain types of
inmates, such as inmates from other jurisdictions or inmates at
medium or higher security levels. Legislation has been enacted
in several states, and has previously been proposed in the
United States House of Representatives, containing such
restrictions. Although we do not believe that existing
legislation will have a material adverse effect on us, future
legislation may have such an effect on us.
Governmental agencies may investigate and audit our contracts
and, if any improprieties are found, we may be required to
refund amounts we have received, to forego anticipated revenues
and we may be subject to penalties and sanctions, including
prohibitions on our bidding in response to Requests for
Proposals, or RFPs, from governmental agencies to manage
correctional facilities. Governmental agencies we contract with
have the authority to audit and investigate our contracts with
them. As part of that process, governmental agencies may review
our performance of the contract, our pricing practices, our cost
structure and our compliance with applicable laws, regulations
and standards. For contracts that actually or effectively
provide for certain reimbursement of expenses, if an agency
determines that we have improperly allocated costs to a specific
contract, we may not be reimbursed for those costs, and we could
be required to refund the amount of any such costs that have
been reimbursed. If we are found to have engaged in improper or
illegal activities, including under the United States False
Claims Act, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties
and administrative sanctions, including termination of
contracts, forfeitures of profits, suspension of payments, fines
and suspension or disqualification from doing business with
certain governmental entities. For example, on December 2,
2010, a complaint against BI was unsealed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
alleging that BI submitted false claims to the New Jersey State
Parole Board with respect to services rendered at certain day
reporting centers in the amount of $2.4 million through
June 30, 2006, and seeking damages under the United States
False Claims Act, which could subject us to the penalties and
other risks discussed above. Although there can be no assurance,
we do not believe this claim has merit or standing under the
False Claims Act, nor do we believe that this matter will have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows. An adverse determination in an action
alleging improper or illegal activities by us could also
adversely impact our ability to bid in response to RFPs in one
or more jurisdictions.
In addition to compliance with applicable laws and regulations,
our facility management contracts typically have numerous
requirements addressing all aspects of our operations which we
may not be able to satisfy. For example, our contracts require
us to maintain certain levels of coverage for general liability,
workers compensation, vehicle liability, and property loss
or damage. If we do not maintain the required categories and
levels of coverage, the contracting governmental agency may be
permitted to terminate the contract. In addition, we are
required under our contracts to indemnify the contracting
governmental agency for all claims and costs arising out of our
management of facilities and, in some instances, we are required
to maintain performance bonds relating to the construction,
development and operation of facilities. Facility management
contracts also typically include reporting requirements,
supervision and
on-site
monitoring by representatives of the contracting governmental
agencies. Failure to properly adhere to the various terms of our
customer contracts could expose us to liability for damages
relating to any breaches as well as the loss of such contracts,
which could materially adversely impact us.
We may
face community opposition to facility location, which may
adversely affect our ability to obtain new
contracts.
Our success in obtaining new awards and contracts sometimes
depends, in part, upon our ability to locate land that can be
leased or acquired, on economically favorable terms, by us or
other entities working with us in conjunction with our proposal
to construct
and/or
manage a facility. Some locations may be in or near populous
areas and, therefore, may generate legal action or other forms
of opposition from residents in areas surrounding a proposed
site. When we select the intended project site, we attempt to
conduct business in communities where local leaders and
residents generally support the establishment of a privatized
correctional
37
or detention facility. Future efforts to find suitable host
communities may not be successful. In many cases, the site
selection is made by the contracting governmental entity. In
such cases, site selection may be made for reasons related to
political
and/or
economic development interests and may lead to the selection of
sites that have less favorable environments.
Our
business operations expose us to various liabilities for which
we may not have adequate insurance.
The nature of our business exposes us to various types of
third-party legal claims, including, but not limited to, civil
rights claims relating to conditions of confinement
and/or
mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or
detainees, medical malpractice claims, product liability claims,
intellectual property infringement claims, claims relating to
employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment
discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour
claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile
liability claims, contractual claims and claims for personal
injury or other damages resulting from contact with our
facilities, programs, electronic monitoring products, personnel
or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoners
escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. In addition,
our management contracts generally require us to indemnify the
governmental agency against any damages to which the
governmental agency may be subject in connection with such
claims or litigation. We maintain insurance coverage for these
general types of claims, except for claims relating to
employment matters, for which we carry no insurance. However, we
generally have high deductible payment requirements on our
primary insurance policies, including our general liability
insurance, and there are also varying limits on the maximum
amount of our overall coverage. As a result, the insurance we
maintain to cover the various liabilities to which we are
exposed may not be adequate. Any losses relating to matters for
which we are either uninsured or for which we do not have
adequate insurance could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition or results of operations. In
addition, any losses relating to employment matters could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations.
We may
not be able to obtain or maintain the insurance levels required
by our government contracts.
Our government contracts require us to obtain and maintain
specified insurance levels. The occurrence of any events
specific to our company or to our industry, or a general rise in
insurance rates, could substantially increase our costs of
obtaining or maintaining the levels of insurance required under
our government contracts, or prevent us from obtaining or
maintaining such insurance altogether. If we are unable to
obtain or maintain the required insurance levels, our ability to
win new government contracts, renew government contracts that
have expired and retain existing government contracts could be
significantly impaired, which could have a material adverse
affect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations.
Our
international operations expose us to risks which could
materially adversely affect our financial condition and results
of operations.
For the year ended January 2, 2011, our international
operations accounted for 15.0% of our consolidated revenues from
continuing operations. We face risks associated with our
operations outside the United States. These risks include, among
others, political and economic instability, exchange rate
fluctuations, taxes, duties and the laws or regulations in those
foreign jurisdictions in which we operate. In the event that we
experience any difficulties arising from our operations in
foreign markets, our business, financial condition and results
of operations may be materially adversely affected.
We
conduct certain of our operations through joint ventures, which
may lead to disagreements with our joint venture partners and
adversely affect our interest in the joint
ventures.
We conduct our operations in South Africa through our
consolidated joint venture, South African Custodial Management
Pty. Limited, which we refer to as SACM, and through our 50%
owned joint venture South African Custodial Services Pty.
Limited, referred to as SACS. We may enter into additional joint
ventures in the future. Although we have the majority vote in
our consolidated joint venture, SACM, through our ownership of
62.5% of the voting shares, we share equal voting control on all
significant matters to come before SACS. These joint venture
partners, as well as any future partners, may have interests
that are different
38
from ours which may result in conflicting views as to the
conduct of the business of the joint venture. In the event that
we have a disagreement with a joint venture partner as to the
resolution of a particular issue to come before the joint
venture, or as to the management or conduct of the business of
the joint venture in general, we may not be able to resolve such
disagreement in our favor and such disagreement could have a
material adverse effect on our interest in the joint venture or
the business of the joint venture in general.
We are
dependent upon our senior management and our ability to attract
and retain sufficient qualified personnel.
We are dependent upon the continued service of each member of
our senior management team, including George C. Zoley, our
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Brian R. Evans, our Chief
Financial Officer, and our six officers at the Senior Vice
President level and above. The unexpected loss of
Mr. Zoley, Mr. Evans or any other key member of our
senior management team could materially adversely affect our
business, financial condition or results of operations.
In addition, the services we provide are labor-intensive. When
we are awarded a facility management contract or open a new
facility, depending on the service we have been contracted to
provide, we may need to hire operating management, correctional
officers, security staff, physicians, nurses and other qualified
personnel. The success of our business requires that we attract,
develop and retain these personnel. Our inability to hire
sufficient qualified personnel on a timely basis or the loss of
significant numbers of personnel at existing facilities could
have a material effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations.
Our
profitability may be materially adversely affected by
inflation.
Many of our facility management contracts provide for fixed
management fees or fees that increase by only small amounts
during their terms. While a substantial portion of our cost
structure is generally fixed, if, due to inflation or other
causes, our operating expenses, such as costs relating to
personnel, utilities, insurance, medical and food, increase at
rates faster than increases, if any, in our facility management
fees, then our profitability could be materially adversely
affected.
Various
risks associated with the ownership of real estate may increase
costs, expose us to uninsured losses and adversely affect our
financial condition and results of operations.
Our ownership of correctional and detention facilities subjects
us to risks typically associated with investments in real
estate. Investments in real estate, and in particular,
correctional and detention facilities, are relatively illiquid
and, therefore, our ability to divest ourselves of one or more
of our facilities promptly in response to changed conditions is
limited. Investments in correctional and detention facilities,
in particular, subject us to risks involving potential exposure
to environmental liability and uninsured loss. Our operating
costs may be affected by the obligation to pay for the cost of
complying with existing environmental laws, ordinances and
regulations, as well as the cost of complying with future
legislation. In addition, although we maintain insurance for
many types of losses, there are certain types of losses, such as
losses from earthquakes, riots and acts of terrorism, which may
be either uninsurable or for which it may not be economically
feasible to obtain insurance coverage, in light of the
substantial costs associated with such insurance. As a result,
we could lose both our capital invested in, and anticipated
profits from, one or more of the facilities we own. Further,
even if we have insurance for a particular loss, we may
experience losses that may exceed the limits of our coverage.
Risks
related to facility construction and development activities may
increase our costs related to such activities.
When we are engaged to perform construction and design services
for a facility, we typically act as the primary contractor and
subcontract with other companies who act as the general
contractors. As primary contractor, we are subject to the
various risks associated with construction (including, without
limitation, shortages of labor and materials, work stoppages,
labor disputes and weather interference) which could cause
construction delays. In addition, we are subject to the risk
that the general contractor will be unable to
39
complete construction at the budgeted costs or be unable to fund
any excess construction costs, even though we typically require
general contractors to post construction bonds and insurance.
Under such contracts, we are ultimately liable for all late
delivery penalties and cost overruns.
The
rising cost and increasing difficulty of obtaining adequate
levels of surety credit on favorable terms could adversely
affect our operating results.
We are often required to post performance bonds issued by a
surety company as a condition to bidding on or being awarded a
facility development contract. Availability and pricing of these
surety commitments is subject to general market and industry
conditions, among other factors. Recent events in the economy
have caused the surety market to become unsettled, causing many
reinsurers and sureties to reevaluate their commitment levels
and required returns. As a result, surety bond premiums
generally are increasing. If we are unable to effectively pass
along the higher surety costs to our customers, any increase in
surety costs could adversely affect our operating results. In
addition, we may not continue to have access to surety credit or
be able to secure bonds economically, without additional
collateral, or at the levels required for any potential facility
development or contract bids. If we are unable to obtain
adequate levels of surety credit on favorable terms, we would
have to rely upon letters of credit under our senior credit
facility, which would entail higher costs even if such borrowing
capacity was available when desired, and our ability to bid for
or obtain new contracts could be impaired.
We may
not be able to successfully identify, consummate or integrate
acquisitions.
We have an active acquisition program, the objective of which is
to identify suitable acquisition targets that will enhance our
growth. The pursuit of acquisitions may pose certain risks to
us. We may not be able to identify acquisition candidates that
fit our criteria for growth and profitability. Even if we are
able to identify such candidates, we may not be able to acquire
them on terms satisfactory to us. We will incur expenses and
dedicate attention and resources associated with the review of
acquisition opportunities, whether or not we consummate such
acquisitions.
Additionally, even if we are able to acquire suitable targets on
agreeable terms, we may not be able to successfully integrate
their operations with ours. We have substantially integrated
Cornells business with our business and expect to fully
integrate Cornell by the end of 2011. We expect to begin to
integrate BIs business with our business during 2011.
Achieving the anticipated benefits of any acquisition, including
the Cornell Acquisition and the BI Acquisition, will depend in
significant part upon whether we integrate Cornells and
BIs businesses in an efficient and effective manner. The
actual integration of any acquisition, including Cornell and BI,
may result in additional and unforeseen expenses, and the
anticipated benefits of the integration plan may not be
realized. We may not be able to accomplish the integration
process smoothly, successfully or on a timely basis. Any
inability of management to successfully and timely integrate the
operations of acquisition, including Cornell and BI, could have
a material adverse effect on our business and results of
operations. We may also assume liabilities in connection with
acquisitions that we would otherwise not be exposed to.
Adverse
developments in our relationship with our employees could
adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of
operations.
At January 2, 2011, approximately 17% of our workforce was
covered by collective bargaining agreements and, as of such
date, collective bargaining agreements with approximately 7% of
our employees were set to expire in less than one year. While
only approximately 17% of our workforce schedule is covered by
collective bargaining agreements, increases in organizational
activity or any future work stoppages could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results
of operations.
40
Risks
Related to Our Acquisition of BI and BIs
Business
Technological
change could cause BIs electronic monitoring products and
technology to become obsolete or require the redesign of
BIs electronic monitoring products, which could have a
material adverse effect on BIs business.
Technological changes within the electronic monitoring business
in which BI conducts business may require BI to expend
substantial resources in an effort to develop
and/or
utilize new electronic monitoring products and technology. BI
may not be able to anticipate or respond to technological
changes in a timely manner, and BIs response may not
result in successful electronic monitoring product development
and timely product introductions. If BI is unable to anticipate
or timely respond to technological changes, BIs business
could be adversely affected and could compromise BIs
competitive position, particularly if BIs competitors
announce or introduce new electronic monitoring products and
services in advance of BI. Additionally, new electronic
monitoring products and technology face the uncertainty of
customer acceptance and reaction from competitors.
Any
negative changes in the level of acceptance of or resistance to
the use of electronic monitoring products and services by
governmental customers could have a material adverse effect on
BIs business, financial condition and results of
operations.
Governmental customers use electronic monitoring products and
services to monitor low risk offenders as a way to help reduce
overcrowding in correctional facilities, as a monitoring and
sanctioning tool, and to promote public safety by imposing
restrictions on movement and serving as a deterrent for alcohol
usage. If the level of acceptance of or resistance to the use of
electronic monitoring products and services by governmental
customers were to change over time in a negative manner so that
governmental customers decide to decrease their usage levels and
contracting for electronic monitoring products and services,
this could have a material adverse effect on BIs business,
financial condition and results of operations.
BI
depends on a limited number of third parties to manufacture and
supply quality infrastructure components for its electronic
monitoring products. If BIs suppliers cannot provide the
components or services BI requires and with such quality as BI
expects, BIs ability to market and sell its electronic
monitoring products and services could be harmed.
If BIs suppliers fail to supply components in a timely
manner that meets BIs quantity, quality, cost
requirements, or technical specifications, BI may not be able to
access alternative sources of these components within a
reasonable period of time or at commercially reasonable rates. A
reduction or interruption in the supply of components, or a
significant increase in the price of components, could have a
material adverse effect on BIs marketing and sales
initiatives, which could adversely affect its financial
condition and results of operations.
As a
result of our acquisition of BI, we may face new risks as we
enter a new line of business.
As a result of our acquisition of BI, a company that provides
electronic monitoring services, we will enter into a new line of
business. We do not have prior experience in the electronic
monitoring services industry and the success of BI will be
subject to all of the uncertainties regarding the development of
a new business. Although we intend to integrate BIs
products and services, there can be no assurance regarding the
successful integration and market acceptance of the electronic
monitoring services by our clients.
The
interruption, delay or failure of the provision of BIs
services or information systems could adversely affect BIs
business.
Certain segments of BIs business depend significantly on
effective information systems. As with all companies that
utilize information technology, BI is vulnerable to negative
impacts if information is inadvertently interrupted, delayed,
compromised or lost. BI routinely processes, stores and
transmits large amounts of data for its clients. The
interruption, delay or failure of BIs services,
information systems or client data could cost BI both monetarily
and in terms of client good will and lost business. Such
interruptions,
41
delays or failures could damage BIs brand and reputation.
BI experienced such an issue in October 2010 with one of its
offender monitoring servers that caused the servers
automatic notification system to be temporarily disabled
resulting in delayed notifications to customers when a database
exceeded its data storage capacity. The issue was resolved
within approximately 12 hours. BI continually works to
update and maintain effective information systems and while BI
believes the issue encountered in October 2010 was an isolated
issue that has been fully resolved, there can be no assurance
that BI will not experience an interruption, delay or failure of
its services, information systems or client data that would
adversely impact its business.
An
inability to acquire, protect or maintain BIs intellectual
property and patents could harm BIs ability to compete or
grow.
BI has numerous United States and foreign patents issued as well
as a number of United States patents pending. There can be no
assurance that the protection afforded by these patents will
provide BI with a competitive advantage, prevent BIs
competitors from duplicating BIs products, or that BI will
be able to assert its intellectual property rights in
infringement actions.
In addition, any of BIs patents may be challenged,
invalidated, circumvented or rendered unenforceable. There can
be no assurance that BI will be successful should one or more of
BIs patents be challenged for any reason. If BIs
patent claims are rendered invalid or unenforceable, or narrowed
in scope, the patent coverage afforded to BIs products
could be impaired, which could significantly impede BIs
ability to market its products, negatively affect its
competitive position and harm its business and operating results.
There can be no assurance that any pending or future patent
applications held by BI will result in an issued patent, or that
if patents are issued to BI, that such patents will provide
meaningful protection against competitors or against competitive
technologies. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to
its validity or its enforceability. The United States federal
courts or equivalent national courts or patent offices elsewhere
may invalidate BIs patents or find them unenforceable.
Competitors may also be able to design around BIs patents.
BIs patents and patent applications cover particular
aspects of its products. Other parties may develop and obtain
patent protection for more effective technologies, designs or
methods. If these developments were to occur, it could have an
adverse effect on BIs sales. BI may not be able to prevent
the unauthorized disclosure or use of its technical knowledge or
trade secrets by consultants, vendors, former employees and
current employees, despite the existence of nondisclosure and
confidentiality agreements and other contractual restrictions.
Furthermore, the laws of foreign countries may not protect
BIs intellectual property rights effectively or to the
same extent as the laws of the United States. If BIs
intellectual property rights are not adequately protected, BI
may not be able to commercialize its technologies, products or
services and BIs competitors could commercialize BIs
technologies, which could result in a decrease in BIs
sales and market share that would harm its business and
operating results.
Additionally, the expiration of any of BIs patents may
reduce the barriers to entry into BIs electronic
monitoring line of business and may result in loss of market
share and a decrease in BIs competitive abilities, thus
having a potential adverse effect on BIs financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.
BIs
products could infringe on the intellectual property rights of
others, which may lead to litigation that could itself be
costly, could result in the payment of substantial damages or
royalties, and/or prevent BI from using technology that is
essential to its products.
There can be no assurance that BIs current products or
products under development will not infringe any patent or other
intellectual property rights of third parties. If infringement
claims are brought against BI, whether successfully or not,
these assertions could distract management from other tasks
important to the success of BIs business, necessitate BI
expending potentially significant funds and resources to defend
or settle such claims and harm BIs reputation. BI cannot
be certain that it will have the financial resources to defend
itself against any patent or other intellectual property
litigation.
42
In addition, intellectual property litigation or claims could
force BI to do one or more of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
cease selling or using any products that incorporate the
asserted intellectual property, which would adversely affect
BIs revenue;
|
|
|
|
pay substantial damages for past use of the asserted
intellectual property;
|
|
|
|
obtain a license from the holder of the asserted intellectual
property, which license may not be available on reasonable
terms, if at all; or
|
|
|
|
redesign or rename, in the case of trademark claims, BIs
products to avoid infringing the intellectual property rights of
third parties, which may not be possible and could be costly and
time-consuming if it is possible to do.
|
In the event of an adverse determination in an intellectual
property suit or proceeding, or BIs failure to license
essential technology, BIs sales could be harmed
and/or its
costs could be increased, which would harm BIs financial
condition.
BI
licenses intellectual property rights, including patents, from
third party owners. If such owners do not properly maintain or
enforce the intellectual property underlying such licenses,
BIs competitive position and business prospects could be
harmed. BIs licensors may also seek to terminate its
license.
BI is a party to a number of licenses that give BI rights to
third-party intellectual property that is necessary or useful to
its business. BIs success will depend in part on the
ability of its licensors to obtain, maintain and enforce its
licensed intellectual property. BIs licensors may not
successfully prosecute any applications for or maintain
intellectual property to which BI has licenses, may determine
not to pursue litigation against other companies that are
infringing such intellectual property, or may pursue such
litigation less aggressively than BI would. Without protection
for the intellectual property BI licenses, other companies might
be able to offer similar products for sale, which could
adversely affect BIs competitive business position and
harm its business prospects.
If BI loses any of its right to use third-party intellectual
property, it could adversely affect its ability to commercialize
its technologies, products or services, as well as harm its
competitive business position and its business prospects.
BI may
be subject to costly product liability claims from the use of
its electronic monitoring products, which could damage BIs
reputation, impair the marketability of BIs products and
services and force BI to pay costs and damages that may not be
covered by adequate insurance.
Manufacturing, marketing, selling, testing and the operation of
BIs electronic monitoring products and services entail a
risk of product liability. BI could be subject to product
liability claims to the extent its electronic monitoring
products fail to perform as intended. Even unsuccessful claims
against BI could result in the expenditure of funds in
litigation, the diversion of management time and resources,
damage to BIs reputation and impairment in the
marketability of BIs electronic monitoring products and
services. While BI maintains liability insurance, it is possible
that a successful claim could be made against BI, that the
amount of BIs insurance coverage would not be adequate to
cover the costs of defending against or paying such a claim, or
that damages payable by BI would harm its business.
43
Risks
Related to Our Common Stock
Fluctuations
in the stock market as well as general economic, market and
industry conditions may harm the market price of our common
stock.
The market price of our common stock has been subject to
significant fluctuation. The market price of our common stock
may continue to be subject to significant fluctuations in
response to operating results and other factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
actual or anticipated quarterly fluctuations in our financial
results, particularly if they differ from investors
expectations;
|
|
|
|
changes in financial estimates and recommendations by securities
analysts;
|
|
|
|
general economic, market and political conditions, including war
or acts of terrorism, not related to our business;
|
|
|
|
actions of our competitors and changes in the market valuations,
strategy and capability of our competitors;
|
|
|
|
our ability to successfully integrate acquisitions and
consolidations; and
|
|
|
|
changes in the prospects of the privatized corrections and
detention industry.
|
In addition, the stock market in recent years has experienced
price and volume fluctuations that often have been unrelated or
disproportionate to the operating performance of companies.
These fluctuations may harm the market price of our common
stock, regardless of our operating results.
Future
sales of our common stock in the public market could adversely
affect the trading price of our common stock that we may issue
and our ability to raise funds in new securities
offerings.
Future sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the
public market, or the perception that such sales could occur,
could adversely affect prevailing trading prices of our common
stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through
future offerings of equity or equity-related securities. We
cannot predict the effect, if any, that future sales of shares
of common stock or the availability of shares of common stock
for future sale will have on the trading price of our common
stock.
Various
anti-takeover protections applicable to us may make an
acquisition of us more difficult and reduce the market value of
our common stock.
We are a Florida corporation and the anti-takeover provisions of
Florida law impose various impediments to the ability of a third
party to acquire control of our company, even if a change of
control would be beneficial to our shareholders. In addition,
provisions of our articles of incorporation may make an
acquisition of us more difficult. Our articles of incorporation
authorize the issuance by our Board of Directors of blank
check preferred stock without shareholder approval. Such
shares of preferred stock could be given voting rights, dividend
rights, liquidation rights or other similar rights superior to
those of our common stock, making a takeover of us more
difficult and expensive. We also have adopted a shareholder
rights plan, commonly known as a poison pill, which
could result in the significant dilution of the proportionate
ownership of any person that engages in an unsolicited attempt
to take over our company and, accordingly, could discourage
potential acquirers. In addition to discouraging takeovers, the
anti-takeover provisions of Florida law and our articles of
incorporation, as well as our shareholder rights plan, may have
the impact of reducing the market value of our common stock.
Failure
to maintain effective internal controls in accordance with
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 could have an
adverse effect on our business and the trading price of our
common stock.
If we fail to maintain the adequacy of our internal controls, in
accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as such standards are modified,
supplemented or amended from time to time, our exposure to fraud
and errors in accounting and financial reporting could
materially
44
increase. Also, inadequate internal controls would likely
prevent us from concluding on an ongoing basis that we have
effective internal control over financial reporting in
accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. Such failure to achieve and maintain effective internal
controls could adversely impact our business and the price of
our common stock.
We may
issue additional debt securities that could limit our operating
flexibility and negatively affect the value of our common
stock.
In the future, we may issue additional debt securities which may
be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing
covenants that could place restrictions on the operation of our
business and the execution of our business strategy in addition
to the restrictions on our business already contained in the
agreements governing our existing debt. In addition, we may
choose to issue debt that is convertible or exchangeable for
other securities, including our common stock, or that has
rights, preferences and privileges senior to our common stock.
Because any decision to issue debt securities will depend on
market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we
cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of any
future debt financings and we may be required to accept
unfavorable terms for any such financings. Accordingly, any
future issuance of debt could dilute the interest of holders of
our common stock and reduce the value of our common stock.
Because
we have no current plans to pay dividends, shareholders will
benefit from an investment in our common stock only if it
appreciates in value.
We currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to
finance the further expansion and continued growth of our
business and do not have any current plans to pay any cash
dividends. As a result, the success of an investment in our
common stock will depend upon any future appreciation in its
value. There is no guarantee that our common stock will
appreciate in value or even maintain the price at which
shareholders purchase their shares.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
Our corporate offices are located in Boca Raton, Florida, under
a lease agreement which was amended in September 2010. The
current lease expires March 2020 and has two
5-year
renewal options for a full term ending March 2030. In addition,
we lease office space for our eastern regional office in
Charlotte, North Carolina; our central regional office in
San Antonio, Texas; and our western regional office in Los
Angeles, California. As a result of the Cornell acquisition in
August 2010, we are also currently leasing office space in
Houston, Texas and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. We also lease
office space in Sydney, Australia, in Sandton, South Africa, and
in Berkshire, England, through our overseas affiliates to
support our Australian, South African, and UK operations,
respectively. We consider our office space adequate for our
current operations.
See the Facilities listing under Item 1 for a list of the
correctional, detention and mental health properties we own or
lease in connection with our operations.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
In June 2004, we received notice of a third-party claim for
property damage incurred during 2001 and 2002 at several
detention facilities formerly operated by our Australian
subsidiary. The claim relates to property damage caused by
detainees at the detention facilities. The notice was given by
the Australian governments insurance provider and did not
specify the amount of damages being sought. In August 2007, a
lawsuit (Commonwealth of Australia v. Australasian
Connectional Services PTY, Limited No. SC 656) was
filed against us in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital
Territory seeking damages of up to approximately AUD
18 million or $18.4 million as of January 2,
2011, plus interest. We believe that we have several defenses to
the allegations underlying the litigation and the amounts sought
and intend to vigorously
45
defend our rights with respect to this matter. We have
established a reserve based on our estimate of the most probable
loss based on the facts and circumstances known to date and the
advice of legal counsel in connection with this matter. Although
the outcome of this matter cannot be predicted with certainty,
based on information known to date and our preliminary review of
the claim and related reserve for loss, we believe that, if
settled unfavorably, this matter could have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows. We are uninsured for any damages or costs that we may
incur as a result of this claim, including the expenses of
defending the claim.
During the fourth fiscal quarter of 2009, the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) completed its examination of our
U.S. federal income tax returns for the years 2002 through
2005. Following the examination, the IRS notified us that it
proposed to disallow a deduction that we realized during the
2005 tax year. In December of 2010 we reached an agreement with
the office of IRS Appeals on the amount of the deduction, which
is currently being reviewed at a higher level. As a result of
the pending agreement, we reassessed the probability of
potential settlement outcomes and reduced our income tax accrual
of $4.9 million by $2.3 million during the fourth
quarter of 2010. However, if the disallowed deduction were to be
sustained in full, it could result in a potential tax exposure
to us of $15.4 million. We believe in the merits of our
position and intend to defend our rights vigorously, including
our rights to litigate the matter if it cannot be resolved
favorably with the office of IRS Appeals. If this matter is
resolved unfavorably, it may have a material adverse effect on
our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
In October 2010, the IRS audit for our U.S. income tax
returns for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 was concluded and
resulted in no changes to our income tax positions.
Our South Africa joint venture has been in discussions with the
South African Revenue Service (SARS) with respect to
the deductibility of certain expenses for the tax periods 2002
through 2004. The joint venture operates the Kutama Sinthumule
Correctional Centre and accepted inmates from the South African
Department of Correctional Services in 2002. During 2009, SARS
notified us that it proposed to disallow these deductions. We
appealed these proposed disallowed deductions with SARS and in
October 2010, received a notice of favorable ruling relative to
these proceedings. If SARS should appeal, we believe we have
defenses in these matters and intend to defend our rights
vigorously. If resolved unfavorably, our maximum exposure would
be $2.6 million.
On April 27, 2010, a putative stockholder class action was
filed in the District Court for Harris County, Texas by Todd
Shelby against Cornell, members of Cornells board of
directors, individually, and GEO. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on May 28, 2010, alleging, among other things,
that the Cornell directors, aided and abetted by Cornell and
GEO, breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Cornell Acquisition. Among other things, the amended complaint
sought to enjoin Cornell, its directors and GEO from completing
the Cornell Acquisition and sought a constructive trust over any
benefits improperly received by the defendants as a result of
their alleged wrongful conduct. The parties reached a settlement
which has been approved by the court and, as a result, the court
dismissed the action with prejudice. The settlement of this
matter did not have a material adverse impact on our financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.
The nature of our business exposes us to various types of claims
or litigation against us, including, but not limited to, civil
rights claims relating to conditions of confinement
and/or
mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or
detainees, medical malpractice claims, product liability claims,
intellectual property infringement claims, claims relating to
employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment
discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour
claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile
liability claims, indemnification claims by our customers and
other third parties, contractual claims and claims for personal
injury or other damages resulting from contact with our
facilities, programs, electronic monitoring products, personnel
or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoners
escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. Except as
otherwise disclosed above, we do not expect the outcome of any
pending claims or legal proceedings to have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.
|
|
Item 4.
|
(Removed
and Reserved)
|
46
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
Our common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol GEO. The following table shows the high and
low prices for our common stock, as reported by the New York
Stock Exchange, for each of the four quarters of fiscal years
2010 and 2009. The prices shown have been rounded to the nearest
$1/100. The approximate number of shareholders of record as of
February 22, 2011 is 291.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
Quarter
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
First
|
|
$
|
23.18
|
|
|
$
|
17.91
|
|
|
$
|
19.25
|
|
|
$
|
11.18
|
|
Second
|
|
|
22.27
|
|
|
|
18.23
|
|
|
|
18.56
|
|
|
|
13.06
|
|
Third
|
|
|
23.73
|
|
|
|
20.04
|
|
|
|
20.56
|
|
|
|
17.22
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
26.77
|
|
|
|
23.43
|
|
|
|
22.41
|
|
|
|
19.75
|
|
On February 22, 2010, we announced that our Board of
Directors approved a stock repurchase program for up to
$80.0 million of our common stock which was effective
through March 31, 2011. The stock repurchase program was
implemented through purchases made from time to time in the open
market or in privately negotiated transactions, in accordance
with applicable Securities and Exchange Commission requirements.
The program also included repurchases from time to time from
executive officers or directors of vested restricted stock
and/or
vested stock options. The stock repurchase program did not
obligate us to purchase any specific amount of our common stock
and could be extended or suspended at any time at our
discretion. During the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011,
we completed the program and purchased 4.0 million shares
of our common stock at a cost of $80.0 million using cash
on hand and cash flow from operating activities. Included in the
4.0 million shares repurchased were 1.1 million shares
repurchased from executive officers at an aggregate cost of
$22.3 million. Also during the fiscal year ended
January 2, 2011, we repurchased 0.3 million shares of
common stock from certain directors and executives for an
aggregate cost of $7.1 million. These purchases all
occurred during our first, second and third fiscal quarters.
There were no repurchases of common stock in the fourth fiscal
quarter.
We did not pay any cash dividends on our common stock for fiscal
years 2010 and 2009. Future dividends, if any, will depend, on
our future earnings, our capital requirements, our financial
condition and on such other factors as our Board of Directors
may take into consideration. In addition to these factors, the
indenture governing our
73/4% Senior
Notes, the indenture governing our 6.625% Senior Notes and
our Senior Credit Facility also place material restrictions on
our ability to pay dividends. See the Liquidity and Capital
Resources section in Item 7 of Managements
Discussion and Analysis and
Note 14-Debt
in Item 8 Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, for further description of these
restrictions.
47
Performance
Graph
The following performance graph compares the performance of our
common stock to the Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index and the
S&P 500 Commercial Services and Supplies Index and is
provided in accordance with Item 201(e) of
Regulation S-K.
Comparison
of Five-Year Cumulative Total Return*
The GEO Group, Inc., Wilshire 500 Equity, and
S&P 500 Commercial Services and Supplies Indexes
(Performance through January 2, 2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S&P 500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial
|
|
|
|
The GEO
|
|
|
Wilshire 5000
|
|
|
Services and
|
Date
|
|
|
Group, Inc.
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
Supplies
|
December 31, 2005
|
|
|
$
|
100.00
|
|
|
|
$
|
100.00
|
|
|
|
$
|
100.00
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
$
|
245.55
|
|
|
|
$
|
115.88
|
|
|
|
$
|
113.86
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
$
|
366.49
|
|
|
|
$
|
122.52
|
|
|
|
$
|
113.74
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
$
|
235.99
|
|
|
|
$
|
76.77
|
|
|
|
$
|
87.24
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
$
|
286.39
|
|
|
|
$
|
99.36
|
|
|
|
$
|
96.70
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
$
|
322.77
|
|
|
|
$
|
117.11
|
|
|
|
$
|
105.18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumes $100 invested on December 31, 2005 in our common
stock and the Index companies.
|
|
|
* |
|
Total return assumes reinvestment of dividends. |
48
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
The selected consolidated financial data should be read in
conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the
notes to the consolidated financial statements (in thousands,
except per share data).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended:(1)
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Results of Continuing Operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
1,269,968
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,141,090
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,043,006
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
976,299
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
818,439
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Operating income from continuing operations
|
|
|
140,473
|
|
|
|
11.1
|
%
|
|
|
135,445
|
|
|
|
11.9
|
%
|
|
|
114,396
|
|
|
|
11.0
|
%
|
|
|
90,727
|
|
|
|
9.3
|
%
|
|
|
60,603
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
%
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
62,790
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
66,469
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
|
$
|
61,829
|
|
|
|
5.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
38,486
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
28,125
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations per common share attributable
to The GEO Group, Inc.:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic:
|
|
$
|
1.15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.80
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.81
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted:
|
|
$
|
1.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.77
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
55,379
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,879
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,539
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,727
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,442
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
55,989
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,922
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,830
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,192
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,744
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Condition:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
$
|
425,134
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
279,634
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
281,920
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
264,518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
322,754
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
270,462
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
177,448
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
185,926
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
186,432
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
173,703
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
2,423,776
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,447,818
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,288,621
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,192,634
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
743,453
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt, including current portion (excluding
non-recourse debt and capital leases)
|
|
|
807,837
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
457,538
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
382,126
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
309,273
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
154,259
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
1,039,490
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
665,098
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
579,597
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
529,347
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
249,907
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operational Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facilities in operation
|
|
|
118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity of contracts
|
|
|
81,225
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52,772
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53,364
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46,460
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compensated mandays(2)
|
|
|
18,939,370
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,332,696
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,946,932
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,026,626
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,778,031
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Our fiscal year ends on the Sunday closest to the calendar year
end. The fiscal year ended January 3, 2010 contained
53 weeks. The fiscal year ends for all other periods
presented contained 52 weeks. |
|
(2) |
|
Compensated mandays are calculated as follows: (a) for per
diem rate facilities the number of beds occupied by
residents on a daily basis during the fiscal year; and
(b) for fixed rate facilities the capacity of
the facility multiplied by the number of days the facility was
in operation during the fiscal year. |
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
Introduction
The following discussion and analysis provides information which
management believes is relevant to an assessment and
understanding of our consolidated results of operations and
financial condition. This discussion contains forward-looking
statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual
results may differ materially from those anticipated in these
forward-looking statements as a result of numerous factors
including, but not limited to, those described above under
Item 1A. Risk Factors, and
Forward-Looking Statements Safe Harbor
below. The discussion should be read in conjunction with the
consolidated financial statements and notes thereto.
We are a leading provider of government-outsourced services
specializing in the management of correctional, detention and
mental health, residential treatment and re-entry facilities,
and the provision of community based services and youth services
in the United States, Australia, South Africa, the
United Kingdom and Canada. On August 12, 2010, we
acquired Cornell and as of January 2, 2011, our worldwide
operations included the management
and/or
ownership of approximately 81,000 beds at 118 correctional,
detention and residential treatment facilities including
projects under development. We operate a broad range of
correctional
49
and detention facilities including maximum, medium and minimum
security prisons, immigration detention centers, minimum
security detention centers, mental health, residential treatment
and community based re-entry facilities. Our correctional and
detention management services involve the provision of security,
administrative, rehabilitation, education, health and food
services, primarily at adult male correctional and detention
facilities. Our mental health and residential treatment services
are operated through our wholly-owned subsidiary GEO Care Inc.
and involve partnering with governments to deliver quality care,
innovative programming and active patient treatment primarily in
privately operated state mental health care facilities. Our
Community Based Services, acquired from Cornell and also
operated through GEO Care, involve supervision of adult parolees
and probationers and provide temporary housing, programming,
employment assistance and other services with the intention of
the successful reintegration of residents into the community.
Youth Services, also acquired from Cornell and operating under
GEO Care, include residential, detention and shelter care and
community based services along with rehabilitative, educational
and treatment programs. We develop new facilities based on
contract awards, using our project development expertise and
experiences to design facilities, construct and finance what we
believe are
state-of-the-art
facilities that maximize security and efficiency. We also
provide secure transportation services for offender and detainee
populations as contracted. For the fiscal year ended
January 2, 2011, we had consolidated revenues of
$1.3 billion and we maintained an average companywide
facility occupancy rate of 94.5%, excluding facilities that are
either idle or under development.
Critical
Accounting Policies
We believe that the accounting policies described below are
critical to understanding our business, results of operations
and financial condition because they involve the more
significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of
our consolidated financial statements. We have discussed the
development, selection and application of our critical
accounting policies with the audit committee of our Board of
Directors, and our audit committee has reviewed our disclosure
relating to our critical accounting policies in this
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations.
Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States. As such, we are required to make certain estimates,
judgments and assumptions that we believe are reasonable based
upon the information available. These estimates and assumptions
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the
date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of
revenues and expenses during the reporting period. We routinely
evaluate our estimates based on historical experience and on
various other assumptions that our management believes are
reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ
from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.
If actual results significantly differ from our estimates, our
financial condition and results of operations could be
materially impacted.
Other significant accounting policies, primarily those with
lower levels of uncertainty than those discussed below, are also
critical to understanding our consolidated financial statements.
The notes to our consolidated financial statements contain
additional information related to our accounting policies and
should be read in conjunction with this discussion.
Reserves
for Insurance Losses
The nature of our business exposes us to various types of
third-party legal claims, including, but not limited to, civil
rights claims relating to conditions of confinement
and/or
mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or
detainees, medical malpractice claims, product liability claims,
intellectual property infringement claims, claims relating to
employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment
discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour
claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile
liability claims, contractual claims and claims for personal
injury or other damages resulting from contact with our
facilities, programs, electronic monitoring products, personnel
or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoners
escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. In addition,
our management contracts generally require us to indemnify the
governmental agency against any damages to which the
governmental agency may be subject in connection with such
claims or litigation. We maintain a broad program of insurance
coverage for these general
50
types of claims, except for claims relating to employment
matters, for which we carry no insurance. There can be no
assurance that our insurance coverage will be adequate to cover
all claims to which we may be exposed. It is our general
practice to bring merged or acquired companies into our
corporate master policies in order to take advantage of certain
economies of scale.
We currently maintain a general liability policy and excess
liability policy for U.S. Detention &
Corrections, GEO Cares Community-Based Services, GEO
Cares Youth Services and BI, Inc. with limits of
$62.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. A
separate $35.0 million limit applies to medical
professional liability claims arising out of correctional
healthcare services. Our wholly owned subsidiary, GEO Care,
Inc., has a separate insurance program for their residential
services division, with a specific loss limit of
$35.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate with
respect to general liability and medical professional liability.
We are uninsured for any claims in excess of these limits. We
also maintain insurance to cover property and other casualty
risks including, workers compensation, environmental
liability and automobile liability.
For most casualty insurance policies, we carry substantial
deductibles or self-insured retentions
$3.0 million per occurrence for general liability and
hospital professional liability, $2.0 million per
occurrence for workers compensation and $1.0 million
per occurrence for automobile liability. In addition, certain of
our facilities located in Florida and other high-risk hurricane
areas carry substantial windstorm deductibles. Since hurricanes
are considered unpredictable future events, no reserves have
been established to pre-fund for potential windstorm damage.
Limited commercial availability of certain types of insurance
relating to windstorm exposure in coastal areas and earthquake
exposure mainly in California may prevent us from insuring some
of our facilities to full replacement value.
With respect to our operations in South Africa, the United
Kingdom and Australia, we utilize a combination of
locally-procured insurance and global policies to meet
contractual insurance requirements and protect the Company. Our
Australian subsidiary is required to carry tail insurance on a
general liability policy providing an extended reporting period
through 2011 related to a discontinued contract.
Of the reserves discussed above, our most significant insurance
reserves relate to workers compensation and general
liability claims. These reserves are undiscounted and were
$40.2 million and $27.2 million as of January 2,
2011 and January 3, 2010, respectively. We use statistical
and actuarial methods to estimate amounts for claims that have
been reported but not paid and claims incurred but not reported.
In applying these methods and assessing their results, we
consider such factors as historical frequency and severity of
claims at each of our facilities, claim development, payment
patterns and changes in the nature of our business, among other
factors. Such factors are analyzed for each of our business
segments. Our estimates may be impacted by such factors as
increases in the market price for medical services and
unpredictability of the size of jury awards. We also may
experience variability between our estimates and the actual
settlement due to limitations inherent in the estimation
process, including our ability to estimate costs of processing
and settling claims in a timely manner as well as our ability to
accurately estimate our exposure at the onset of a claim.
Because we have high deductible insurance policies, the amount
of our insurance expense is dependent on our ability to control
our claims experience. If actual losses related to insurance
claims significantly differ from our estimates, our financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows could be
materially adversely impacted.
Income
Taxes
Deferred income taxes are determined based on the estimated
future tax effects of differences between the financial
statement and tax basis of assets and liabilities given the
provisions of enacted tax laws. Significant judgments are
required to determine the consolidated provision for income
taxes. Deferred income tax provisions and benefits are based on
changes to the assets or liabilities from year to year.
Realization of our deferred tax assets is dependent upon many
factors such as tax regulations applicable to the jurisdictions
in which we operate, estimates of future taxable income and the
character of such taxable income. Additionally, we must use
significant judgment in addressing uncertainties in the
application of complex tax laws and regulations. If actual
circumstances differ from our assumptions, adjustments to the
carrying value of deferred tax assets or liabilities may be
required, which may result in an adverse impact on the results
of our
51
operations and our effective tax rate. Valuation allowances are
recorded related to deferred tax assets based on the more
likely than not criteria. Management has not made any
significant changes to the way we account for our deferred tax
assets and liabilities in any year presented in the consolidated
financial statements. Based on our estimate of future earnings
and our favorable earnings history, management currently expects
full realization of the deferred tax assets net of any recorded
valuation allowances. Furthermore, tax positions taken by us may
not be fully sustained upon examination by the taxing
authorities. In determining the adequacy of our provision
(benefit) for income taxes, potential settlement outcomes
resulting from income tax examinations are regularly assessed.
As such, the final outcome of tax examinations, including the
total amount payable or the timing of any such payments upon
resolution of these issues, cannot be estimated with certainty.
To the extent that the provision for income taxes
increases/decreases by 1% of income before income taxes, equity
in earnings of affiliate, discontinued operations, and
consolidated income from continuing operations would have
decreased/increased by $1.0 million, $1.0 million and
$0.9 million, respectively, for the years ended
January 2, 2011, January 3, 2010 and December 28,
2008.
Property
and Equipment
Property and equipment are stated at cost, less accumulated
depreciation. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line
method over the estimated useful lives of the related assets.
Buildings and improvements are depreciated over 2 to
50 years. Equipment and furniture and fixtures are
depreciated over 3 to 10 years. Accelerated methods of
depreciation are generally used for income tax purposes.
Leasehold improvements are amortized on a straight-line basis
over the shorter of the useful life of the improvement or the
term of the lease. We perform ongoing assessments of the
estimated useful lives of the property and equipment for
depreciation purposes. The estimated useful lives are determined
and continually evaluated based on the period over which
services are expected to be rendered by the asset. If the
assessment indicates that assets will be used for a longer or
shorter period than previously anticipated, the useful lives of
the assets are revised, resulting in a change in estimate. In
our first fiscal quarter ended April 4, 2010, we completed
a depreciation study on our owned correctional facilities. Based
on the results of the depreciation study, we revised the
estimated useful lives of certain of our buildings from our
historical estimate of 40 years to a revised estimate of
50 years, effective January 4, 2010. Maintenance and
repairs are expensed as incurred. Interest is capitalized in
connection with the construction of correctional and detention
facilities. Capitalized interest is recorded as part of the
asset to which it relates and is amortized over the assets
estimated useful life.
We review long-lived assets to be held and used for impairment
whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the
carrying amount of such assets may not be fully recoverable. If
a long-lived asset is part of a group that includes other
assets, the unit of accounting for the long-lived asset is its
group. Generally, we group our assets by facility for the
purposes of considering whether any impairment exists.
Determination of recoverability is based on an estimate of
undiscounted future cash flows resulting from the use of the
asset or asset group and its eventual disposition. When
considering the future cash flows of a facility, we make
assumptions based on historical experience with our customers,
terminal growth rates and weighted average cost of capital.
While these estimates do not generally have a material impact on
the impairment charges associated with managed-only facilities,
the sensitivity increases significantly when considering the
impairment on facilities that are either owned or leased by us.
Events that would trigger an impairment assessment include
deterioration of profits for a business segment that has
long-lived assets, or when other changes occur that might impair
recovery of long-lived assets such as the termination of a
management contract. Long-lived assets to be disposed of are
reported at the lower of carrying amount or fair value less
costs to sell. Measurement of an impairment loss for long-lived
assets that management expects to hold and use is based on the
fair value of the asset.
Revenue
Recognition
Facility management revenues are recognized as services are
provided under facility management contracts with approved
government appropriations based on a net rate per day per inmate
or on a fixed monthly rate. A limited number of our contracts
have provisions upon which a small portion of the revenue for
the contract is based on the performance of certain targets.
Revenue based on the performance of certain
52
targets is less than 2% of our consolidated annual revenues.
These performance targets are based on specific criteria to be
met over specific periods of time. Such criteria includes our
ability to achieve certain contractual benchmarks relative to
the quality of service we provide, non-occurrence of certain
disruptive events, effectiveness of our quality control programs
and our responsiveness to customer requirements and concerns.
For the limited number of contracts where revenue is based on
the performance of certain targets, revenue is either
(i) recorded pro rata when revenue is fixed and
determinable or (ii) recorded when the specified time
period lapses. In many instances, we are a party to more than
one contract with a single entity. In these instances, each
contract is accounted for separately. We have not recorded any
revenue that is at risk due to future performance contingencies.
Construction revenues are recognized from our contracts with
certain customers to perform construction and design services
(project development services) for various
facilities. In these instances, we act as the primary developer
and subcontract with bonded National
and/or
Regional Design Build Contractors. These construction revenues
are recognized as earned on a percentage of completion basis
measured by the percentage of costs incurred to date as compared
to the estimated total cost for each contract. Provisions for
estimated losses on uncompleted contracts and changes to cost
estimates are made in the period in which we determine that such
losses and changes are probable. Typically, we enter into fixed
price contracts and do not perform additional work unless
approved change orders are in place. Costs attributable to
unapproved change orders are expensed in the period in which the
costs are incurred if we believe that it is not probable that
the costs will be recovered through a change in the contract
price. If we believe that it is probable that the costs will be
recovered through a change in the contract price, costs related
to unapproved change orders are expensed in the period in which
they are incurred, and contract revenue is recognized to the
extent of the costs incurred. Revenue in excess of the costs
attributable to unapproved change orders is not recognized until
the change order is approved. Changes in job performance, job
conditions, and estimated profitability, including those arising
from contract penalty provisions, and final contract
settlements, may result in revisions to estimated costs and
income, and are recognized in the period in which the revisions
are determined. As the primary contractor, we are exposed to the
various risks associated with construction, including the risk
of cost overruns. Accordingly, we record our construction
revenue on a gross basis and include the related cost of
construction activities in Operating Expenses.
When evaluating multiple element arrangements for certain
contracts where we provide project development services to our
clients in addition to standard management services, we follow
revenue recognition guidance for multiple element arrangements.
This revenue recognition guidance related to multiple
deliverables in an arrangement provides guidance on determining
if separate contracts should be evaluated as a single
arrangement and if an arrangement involves a single unit of
accounting or separate units of accounting and if the
arrangement is determined to have separate units, how to
allocate amounts received in the arrangement for revenue
recognition purposes. In instances where we provide these
project development services and subsequent management services,
generally, the arrangement results in no delivered elements at
the onset of the agreement. The elements are delivered over the
contract period as the project development and management
services are performed. Project development services are not
provided separately to a customer without a management contract.
We can determine the fair value of the undelivered management
services contract and therefore, the value of the project
development deliverable, is determined using the residual method.
Impact of
Future Accounting Pronouncements
The following accounting standards have an implementation date
subsequent to the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011 and as
such, have not yet been adopted by us during the fiscal year
ended January 2, 2011:
In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2009-13
which provides amendments to revenue recognition criteria for
separating consideration in multiple element arrangements. As a
result of these amendments, multiple deliverable arrangements
will be separated more frequently than under existing GAAP. The
amendments, among other things, establish the selling price of a
deliverable, replace the term fair value with selling price and
eliminate the residual method so that consideration would be
allocated to the deliverables using the relative selling price
method. This amendment also significantly expands the disclosure
requirements for multiple element arrangements. This guidance
will become effective for us
53
prospectively for revenue arrangements entered into or
materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after
June 15, 2010. We do not believe that the implementation of
this standard will have a material impact on our financial
position, results of operation and cash flows.
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-28
related to goodwill and intangible assets. Under current
guidance, testing for goodwill impairment is a two-step test.
When a goodwill impairment test is performed, an entity must
assess whether the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds
its fair value (Step 1). If it does, an entity must perform an
additional test to determine whether goodwill has been impaired
and to calculate the amount of that impairment (Step 2). The
objective of ASU No
2010-28 is
to address circumstances in which entities have reporting units
with zero or negative carrying amounts. The amendments in this
guidance modify Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for
reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts to
require an entity to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment
test if it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment
exists after considering certain qualitative characteristics, as
described in this guidance. This guidance will become effective
for the Company in fiscal years, and interim periods within
those years, beginning after December 15, 2010. We
currently do not have any reporting units with a zero or
negative carrying value and we do not expect that the impact of
this accounting standard will have a material impact on our
financial position, results of operations
and/or cash
flows.
Also, in December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-29
related to financial statement disclosures for business
combinations entered into after the beginning of the first
annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15,
2010. The amendments in this guidance specify that if a public
entity presents comparative financial statements, the entity
should disclose revenue and earnings of the combined entity as
though the business combination(s) that occurred during the
current year had occurred as of the beginning of the comparable
prior annual reporting period only. These amendments also expand
the supplemental pro forma disclosures under current guidance
for business combinations to include a description of the nature
and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments
directly attributable to the business combination included in
the reported pro forma revenue and earnings. The amendments in
this update are effective prospectively for business
combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the
beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or
after December 15, 2010. We do not expect that the impact
of this accounting standard will have a material impact on our
financial position, results of operations
and/or cash
flows.
Results
of Operations
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our
consolidated financial statements and the notes to the
consolidated financial statements accompanying this report. This
discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve
risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ
materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking
statements as a result of certain factors, including, but not
limited to, those described under Item 1A. Risk
Factors and those included in other portions of this
report.
The discussion of our results of operations below excludes the
results of discontinued operations reported in 2009 and 2008.
For the purposes of the discussion below, 2010 means
the 52 weeks fiscal year ended January 2, 2011,
2009 means the 53 week fiscal year ended
January 3, 2010, and 2008 means the
52 weeks fiscal year ended December 28, 2008. Our
fiscal quarters in the fiscal years discussed below are referred
to as First Quarter, Second Quarter,
Third Quarter and Fourth Quarter.
54
2010
versus 2009
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. Detention & Corrections
|
|
$
|
842,417
|
|
|
|
66.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
772,497
|
|
|
|
67.7
|
%
|
|
$
|
69,920
|
|
|
|
9.1
|
%
|
International Services
|
|
|
190,477
|
|
|
|
15.0
|
%
|
|
|
137,171
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
%
|
|
|
53,306
|
|
|
|
38.9
|
%
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
213,819
|
|
|
|
16.8
|
%
|
|
|
133,387
|
|
|
|
11.7
|
%
|
|
|
80,432
|
|
|
|
60.3
|
%
|
Facility Construction & Design
|
|
|
23,255
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
%
|
|
|
98,035
|
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
|
|
(74,780
|
)
|
|
|
(76.3
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,269,968
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,141,090
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
128,878
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
Detention & Corrections
The increase in revenues for U.S. Detention &
Corrections in 2010 compared to 2009 is primarily due to the
acquisition of Cornell in August 2010 which contributed
additional revenues of $85.5 million. Increases at other
facilities in 2010 included: (i) $7.2 million from
Blackwater River Correctional Facility located in Milton,
Florida which we completed the construction and began intake of
inmates in October 2010; and (ii) an aggregate increase of
$13.3 million due to pre diem rate increases and increases
in population. These increases were offset by: (i) an
aggregate decrease of $9.1 million due to modest per diem
reductions and lower populations at certain facilities;
(ii) an aggregate decrease of $29.7 million due to our
terminated contracts at the McFarland Community Correctional
Facility (McFarland) in McFarland, California, Moore
Haven Correctional Facility (Moore Haven) in Moore
Haven, Florida, the Jefferson County Downtown Jail
(Jefferson County) in Beaumont, Texas, Newton County
Correctional Center (Newton County) in Newton,
Texas, Graceville Correctional Facility (Graceville)
in Graceville, Florida, South Texas Intermediate Sanction
Facility (South Texas ISF) in Houston, Texas and
Bridgeport Correctional Center (Bridgeport) in
Bridgeport, Texas.
The number of compensated mandays in U.S. Detention &
Corrections facilities increased by 0.7 million to
15.1 million mandays in 2010 from 14.4 million mandays
in 2009 due to the acquisition of Cornell which resulted in an
additional 1.4 million mandays. This increase in mandays
was offset by a net decrease of 0.8 million mandays related
to the terminated contracts previously discussed. We look at the
average occupancy in our facilities to determine how we are
managing our available beds. The average occupancy is calculated
by taking compensated mandays as a percentage of capacity. The
average occupancy in our U.S. Detention & Corrections
facilities was 93.8% of capacity in 2010, excluding the
terminated contracts discussed above and idle facilities. The
average occupancy in our U.S. Detention & Corrections
facilities was 93.6% in 2009 excluding idle facilities and
taking into account the reclassification of our Bronx Community
Re-entry Center and our Brooklyn Community Re-entry Center to
GEO Care during 2010.
International
Services
Revenues for our International Services segment during 2010
increased significantly due to several factors. Our new
management contract for the operation of the Parklea
Correctional Centre in Sydney, Australia (Parklea)
which started in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2009 contributed
an increase in revenues for fiscal year 2010 of
$21.9 million. Our contract for the management of the
Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre in London, England
(Harmondsworth) experienced an increase in revenues
of $11.4 million due to the activation of the 360-bed
expansion in July 2010. In addition, we experienced increases at
other international facilities due to contractual increases
linked to the inflationary index at some facilities and
additional services provided at other facilities. In the
aggregate, these increases contributed revenues of
$2.6 million in fiscal year 2010. We also experienced an
increase in revenues of $21.3 million during fiscal year
2010 due to the fluctuation of foreign currencies. These
increases were partially offset by a decrease in
55
revenues of $3.7 million related to our terminated contract
for the operation of the Melbourne Custody Centre in Melbourne,
Australia.
GEO
Care
The increase in revenues for GEO Care in 2010 compared to 2009
is primarily attributable to the acquisition of Cornell in
August 2010, which contributed $65.7 million in additional
revenues. Additionally, revenues from our operation of the
Columbia Regional Care Center in Columbia, South Carolina, as a
result of our acquisition of Just Care, Inc., which we refer to
as Just Care, in September 2009, contributed an increase of
$17.8 million compared to 2009. These increases were offset
by aggregate decreases of $2.7 million at other GEO Care
Residential Treatment Services facilities. These decreases were
primarily the result of lower per diem rates and lower average
daily populations. In Fourth Quarter 2010, we reclassified the
Bronx Community Re-entry Center and Brooklyn Community Re-entry
Center from U.S. Detention & Corrections to GEO Care. The
segment data has been revised for all periods presented to
reflect the approach used by management to evaluate the
performance of the business.
The number of compensated mandays for GEO Care increased by
0.6 million to 1.3 million mandays in 2010 from
0.7 million mandays in 2009 primarily due to the
acquisition of Cornell. The average occupancy at our GEO Care
facilities was 92.4% of capacity in 2010, excluding idle
facilities and taking into account the reclassification of our
Bronx Community Re-entry Center and our Brooklyn Community
Re-entry Center. The average occupancy at our GEO Care
facilities was 99.5% in 2009. The decline in average occupancy
is a result of the Cornell acquisition. We added 21
community-based facilities and 17 youth services facilities
which are occupancy sensitive. In 2009, the residential
treatment facilities were primarily fixed fee arrangements.
Facility
Construction & Design
The decrease in revenues from the Facility Construction &
Design segment in 2010 is primarily due to a decrease in
construction activities at Blackwater River Correctional
Facility in Milton, Florida which resulted in a decrease in
revenues of $68.3 million. The Blackwater River
Correctional Facility construction was completed in October 2010
and we began intake of inmates on October 5, 2010. In
addition, there was $4.7 million decrease at the Florida
Civil Commitment Center (FCCC) due to the completion
of construction in Second Quarter 2009.
Operating
Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. Detention & Corrections
|
|
$
|
598,275
|
|
|
|
71.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
558,313
|
|
|
|
72.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
39,962
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
%
|
International Services
|
|
|
176,399
|
|
|
|
92.6
|
%
|
|
|
127,706
|
|
|
|
93.1
|
%
|
|
|
48,693
|
|
|
|
38.1
|
%
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
179,473
|
|
|
|
83.9
|
%
|
|
|
113,426
|
|
|
|
85.0
|
%
|
|
|
66,047
|
|
|
|
58.2
|
%
|
Facility Construction & Design
|
|
|
20,873
|
|
|
|
89.8
|
%
|
|
|
97,654
|
|
|
|
99.6
|
%
|
|
|
(76,781
|
)
|
|
|
(78.6
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
975,020
|
|
|
|
76.8
|
%
|
|
$
|
897,099
|
|
|
|
78.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
77,921
|
|
|
|
8.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses consist of those expenses incurred in the
operation and management of our correctional, detention and
mental health and GEO Care facilities and expenses incurred in
our Facility Construction & Design segment.
U.S.
Detention & Corrections
The increase in operating expenses for U.S. Detention
& Corrections reflects the impact of our acquisition of
Cornell which resulted in an increase in operating expenses of
$63.1 million. We also experienced increases to operating
expenses due to the activation of new management contracts at D.
Ray James Correctional Facility and
56
Blackwater River Correctional Facility. Certain of our other
facilities also experienced increases in expenses associated
with increases in populations and contract modifications
resulting in additional services. These increases were offset by
decreases in expenses of approximately $30 million as a
result of terminated contracts at McFarland, Moore Haven,
Jefferson County, Graceville, Newton County, South Texas ISF,
Bridgeport and Fort Worth.
International
Services
Expenses increased at all of our international subsidiaries
consistent with the revenue increases and are slightly less as a
percentage of segment revenues due to a decrease in start up
costs in 2010 compared to 2009. The operating expenses
associated with the new contracts in the United Kingdom and
Australia for the operation of Harmondsworth and Parklea
accounted for a combined increase over the fiscal year 2009 of
$26.6 million since these facilities were in operation for
the entire year in 2010. Changes in foreign currency translation
rates contributed an increase in operating expenses of
approximately $20.0 million.
GEO
Care
Operating expenses increased by $66.0 million in 2010
compared to 2009 primarily due to an increase of
$51.7 million in operating expenses related to the
acquisition of Cornell. The remaining increase was primarily
attributable to an increase of $16.4 million of operating
expenses at the Columbia Regional Care Center in Columbia, South
Carolina as a result of our acquisition of Just Care in Fourth
Quarter 2009.
Facility
Construction & Design
The decrease in operating expenses for Facility Construction
& Design is primarily attributable to the completion of
construction at Blackwater River Correctional Facility in
October 2010 which resulted in a decrease of $70.3 million,
and the completion of our expansion of FCCC in Second Quarter
2009 which decreased operating expenses by $5.1 million.
Depreciation
and Amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. Detention & Corrections
|
|
$
|
39,744
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
|
$
|
35,855
|
|
|
|
4.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
3,889
|
|
|
|
10.8
|
%
|
International Services
|
|
|
1,767
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
1,448
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
|
|
319
|
|
|
|
22.0
|
%
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
6,600
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
|
|
2,003
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
4,597
|
|
|
|
229.5
|
%
|
Facility Construction & Design
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
48,111
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
%
|
|
$
|
39,306
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
8,805
|
|
|
|
22.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
Detention & Corrections
U.S. Detention & Corrections depreciation and
amortization expense increased by $6.4 million as a result
of the tangible and intangible assets purchased in connection
with our acquisition of Cornell. In addition, the completion of
the Aurora ICE Processing Center and the Northwest Detention
Center construction projects in Q2 2010 increased depreciation
expense by $0.9 million and $0.8 million,
respectively. These increases were partially offset by lower
depreciation on existing facilities related to the depreciation
study on our owned correctional facilities conducted in the
first fiscal quarter of 2010. Based on the results of the
depreciation study, we revised the estimated useful lives of
certain of our buildings from our historical estimate of
40 years to a revised estimate of 50 years, effective
January 4, 2010. For the fiscal year 2010, the change
resulted in a reduction in depreciation expense of approximately
$3.7 million.
57
International
Services
Overall, depreciation and amortization expense increased
slightly in the fiscal year 2010 over the fiscal year 2009
primarily due to our new management contracts for the operation
of Parklea and the Harmondsworth expansion, as discussed above,
and also from changes in the foreign exchange rates.
GEO
Care
The increase in depreciation and amortization expense for GEO
Care in the fiscal year 2010 compared to the fiscal year 2009 is
primarily due to our acquisitions of Just Care and Cornell which
contributed increases to depreciation and amortization expense
of $0.7 million and $3.1 million, respectively.
Other
Unallocated Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2009
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
General and Administrative Expenses
|
|
$
|
106,364
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
69,240
|
|
|
|
6.1
|
%
|
|
$
|
37,124
|
|
|
|
53.6
|
%
|
General and administrative expenses comprise substantially all
of our other unallocated operating expenses primarily including
corporate management salaries and benefits, professional fees
and other administrative expenses. These expenses increased
significantly in 2010 compared to 2009. Increases in general and
administrative expenses of $11.3 million are related to the
general and administrative expenses of Cornell from August 12,
2010 to January 2, 2011. The remaining increase is
primarily the result of acquisition related expenses incurred
for both the acquisitions of Cornell and BI which resulted in
nonrecurring charges of approximately $25 million.
Excluding the impact of Cornell and the $25 million in
acquisition related costs, general and administrative expenses
as a percentage of revenue in 2010 would have been 6.3%.
Acquisition related costs consisted primarily of advisory,
legal, and bank fees. We also experienced increases related to
normal compensation adjustments and professional fees.
Non
Operating Income and Expense
Interest
Income and Interest Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2009
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Interest Income
|
|
$
|
6,271
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
4,943
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,328
|
|
|
|
26.9
|
%
|
Interest Expense
|
|
$
|
40,707
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
28,518
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
12,189
|
|
|
|
42.7
|
%
|
The majority of our interest income generated in 2010 and 2009
is from the cash balances at our Australian subsidiary. The
increase in the current period over the same period last year is
mainly attributable to currency exchange rates and to higher
average cash balances.
The increase in interest expense of $12.2 million is
primarily attributable to higher outstanding average borrowings
under our Senior Credit Facility which increased interest
expense by $6.5 million. In addition, our
73/4% Senior
Notes, which were issued in October 2009 and were outstanding
for the entire fiscal year 2010, resulted in an increase to
interest expense of $3.3 million. We also had less
capitalized interest which increased interest expense in 2010 by
$0.8 million. Capitalized interest was $4.1 million
and $4.9 million in 2010 and 2009, respectively. Total
consolidated indebtedness at January 2, 2011 and
January 3, 2010, excluding non-recourse debt and capital
lease liabilities, was $807.8 million and
$457.5 million, respectively.
We have interest rate swap agreements with respect to a notional
amount of $100.0 million of the
73/4% Senior
Notes which resulted in a savings in interest expense of
$3.1 million and $0.5 million for the fiscal years
ended January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010,
respectively.
Provision
for Income Taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
Effective Rate
|
|
2009
|
|
Effective Rate
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Income Tax Provision
|
|
$
|
39,532
|
|
|
|
40.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
42,079
|
|
|
|
40.1
|
%
|
58
The effective tax rate during 2010 was 40.3%, compared to 40.1%
in 2009. The 2010 effective tax rate increased due to the impact
of nondeductible transaction costs, which was partially offset
by a decrease in the reserve for unrecognized tax benefits of
$2.3 million. In the absence of the transaction costs and
the change in the reserve, the effective tax rate would be
39.4%. The effective tax rate in 2009 included an increase in
the reserve for unrecognized tax benefits.
Equity in
Earnings of Affiliate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2009
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Equity in Earnings of Affiliate
|
|
$
|
4,218
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
3,517
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
701
|
|
|
|
19.9
|
%
|
Equity in earnings of affiliates represent the earnings of SACS
in 2010 and 2009 and reflects an overall increase in earnings in
2010 primarily related to foreign currency exchange rates and to
a lesser extent contractual increases.
2009
versus 2008
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. Detention & Corrections
|
|
$
|
772,497
|
|
|
|
67.7
|
%
|
|
$
|
700,587
|
|
|
|
67.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
71,910
|
|
|
|
10.3
|
%
|
International Services
|
|
|
137,171
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
%
|
|
|
128,672
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
%
|
|
|
8,499
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
%
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
133,387
|
|
|
|
11.7
|
%
|
|
|
127,850
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
%
|
|
|
5,537
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
%
|
Facility Construction & Design
|
|
|
98,035
|
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
|
|
85,897
|
|
|
|
8.2
|
%
|
|
|
12,138
|
|
|
|
14.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,141,090
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,043,006
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
98,084
|
|
|
|
9.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
Detention & Corrections
The increase in revenues for U.S. Detention &
Corrections in 2009 compared to 2008 is primarily attributable
to project activations, capacity increases and per diem rate
increases at existing facilities and new management contracts.
The most significant increases to revenue were as follows:
(i) revenues increased $24.1 million in total due to
the activation of three new contracts in Third and Fourth
Quarter 2008 for the management of Joe Corley Detention Facility
in Conroe, Texas, Northeast New Mexico Detention Facility in
Clayton, New Mexico and Maverick County Detention Facility in
Maverick, Texas; (ii) revenues increased $24.6 million
in 2009 as a result of our opening of our Rio Grande Detention
Center in Laredo, Texas in Fourth Quarter 2008;
(iii) revenues increased $6.1 million as a result of
the 500-bed expansion of East Mississippi Corrections Facility
in Meridian, Mississippi, which was completed in October 2008;
(iv) revenues increased $5.1 million at the Robert A.
Deyton Detention Facility in Lovejoy, Georgia as a result of the
192-bed activation in January 2009; (v) revenues increased
$6.1 million at the Broward Transition Center due to an
increase in per diem rates and population; (vi) we
experienced an increase of revenues of $9.9 million related
to contract modifications and additional services at our South
Texas Detention Complex in Pearsall, Texas;
(vii) approximately $8.2 million of the increase is
attributable to per diem increases, other contract
modifications, award fees and population increases. Overall, we
experienced slight increases over the 52-week period ended
December 28, 2008 related to the additional week in the
53-week period ended January 3, 2010. These increases were
offset by a decrease in revenues of $20.6 million due to
the termination of our management contract at the Sanders Estes
Unit in Venus, Texas, Newton County Correctional Center in
Newton, Texas, Jefferson County Downtown Jail in Beaumont,
Texas, Fort Worth Community Corrections Facility in
Fort Worth, Texas, and the Tri-County Justice &
Detention Center in Ullin, Illinois.
59
The number of compensated mandays in U.S. Detention &
Corrections facilities increased by 1.2 million to
14.4 million mandays in 2009 from 13.2 million mandays
in 2008 due to the addition of new facilities and capacity
increases. We look at the average occupancy in our facilities to
determine how we are managing our available beds. The average
occupancy is calculated by taking compensated mandays as a
percentage of capacity. The average occupancy in our
U.S. Detention & Corrections facilities was 93.6% of
capacity in 2009, excluding the terminated contract for
Tri-County Justice & Detention Center which was
terminated effective August 2008. The average occupancy in our
U.S. Detention & Corrections facilities was 96.4% in
2008 not taking into account the 1,221 beds activated in 2009 at
four facilities in our U.S. Detention & Corrections
segment.
International
Services
Revenues for our International Services segment during 2009
increased over the prior year due to several reasons including:
(i) new contracts in Australia and in the United Kingdom
for the management of the Parklea Correctional Centre in Sydney,
Australia and the Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre in
London, England which contributed an incremental
$4.1 million and $8.1 million of revenues,
respectively, (ii) our contract in South Africa for the
management of Kutama-Sinthumule Correcional Centre contributed
an increase in revenues over the prior year of $1.2 million
mainly due to contractual increases linked to the South African
inflationary index, and (iii) we also experienced an
increase in revenues of $4.8 million, in aggregate, at
certain facilities managed by our Australian subsidiary due to
contractual increases linked to the inflationary index. These
increases were offset by unfavorable fluctuations in foreign
exchange currency rates for the Australian Dollar, South African
Rand and British Pound. These unfavorable fluctuations in
foreign exchange rates resulted in a decrease of revenues over
2008 of $9.9 million.
GEO
Care
The increase in revenues for GEO Care in 2009 compared to 2008
is primarily attributable to the revenues from our newly
acquired contract for the management of Columbia Regional Care
Center in Columbia, South Carolina which generated
$7.5 million of revenues. We also experienced combined
increases of $3.1 million at South Florida Evaluation and
Treatment in Miami, Florida and Treasure Coast Forensic
Treatment Center in Stuart, Florida as a result of increases in
populations. These increases were offset by the loss of revenues
from the termination of our management contract with the South
Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center Annex in
July 2008. This contract generated $7.5 million of revenues
in 2008.
Facility
Construction & Design
The increase in revenues from the Facility Construction &
Design segment in 2009 compared to 2008 is mainly due to an
increase of $91.3 million related to the construction of
Blackwater River Correctional Facility, in Milton, Florida which
commenced in First Quarter 2009. This increase over the same
period in the prior year was offset by decreases in construction
activities at four facilities: (i) the completion of
construction for the South Florida Evaluation and Treatment
Center in Miami, Florida in Third Quarter 2008 decreased
revenues by $6.8 million; (ii) the completion of
construction of our Northeast New Mexico Detention Facility in
Clayton, New Mexico in Third Quarter 2008 decreased revenues by
$15.4 million, (iii) the completion of Florida Civil
Commitment Center in Second Quarter decreased revenues by
$33.9 million and (iv) the completion of Graceville
Correctional Facility in Third Quarter 2009 which decreased
revenues by $21.9 million.
60
Operating
Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. Detention & Corrections
|
|
$
|
558,313
|
|
|
|
72.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
510,500
|
|
|
|
72.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
47,813
|
|
|
|
9.4
|
%
|
International Services
|
|
|
127,706
|
|
|
|
93.1
|
%
|
|
|
116,379
|
|
|
|
90.4
|
%
|
|
|
11,327
|
|
|
|
9.7
|
%
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
113,426
|
|
|
|
85.0
|
%
|
|
|
109,603
|
|
|
|
85.7
|
%
|
|
|
3,823
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
Facility Construction & Design
|
|
|
97,654
|
|
|
|
99.6
|
%
|
|
|
85,571
|
|
|
|
99.6
|
%
|
|
|
12,083
|
|
|
|
14.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
897,099
|
|
|
|
78.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
822,053
|
|
|
|
78.8
|
%
|
|
$
|
75,046
|
|
|
|
9.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses consist of those expenses incurred in the
operation and management of our correctional, detention and
mental health and GEO Care facilities and expenses incurred in
our Facility Construction & Design segment.
U.S.
Detention & Corrections
Overall, operating expenses remained fairly consistent with
fiscal 2008 with slight decreases as a percentage of revenues
due to decreases in travel costs of $3.3 million in fiscal
2009. The most significant increases to operating expense were
related to new management contracts, new facility activations
and increases in population from expansion beds which were
activated during the fiscal year. Such projects include Joe
Corley Detention Facility, Northeast New Mexico Detention
Facility, Maverick County Detention Facility, Rio Grande
Detention Center, East Mississippi Corrections Facility and
Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility. These contracts contributed
$40.8 million of the increase to our operating expenses.
Certain of our other facilities also experienced increases in
expenses associated with increases in population and contract
modifications resulting in additional services. These increases
were partially offset by decreases in expenses as a result of
facility closures for Jefferson County Downtown Jail, Newton
County Correctional Center, Fort Worth Community
Corrections Facility, Sanders Estes Unit and Tri County
Justice & Detention Center.
International
Services
Expenses increased at all of our international subsidiaries
consistent with the revenue increases. The costs associated with
the new contracts in the United Kingdom and Australia accounted
for a combined increase of $15.1 million, including start
up costs of $3.0 million. Start up costs are non-recurring
costs for training, additional staffing requirements, overtime
and other costs of transitioning a new management contract. The
increase in expenses in 2009 was significantly offset by the
impact of foreign exchange currency rates. Overall, operating
expenses for International Services facilities increased
slightly as a percentage of segment revenues in 2009 compared to
2008 mainly due to the start up costs in Australia and the
United Kingdom.
GEO
Care
Operating expenses for residential treatment increased
$3.3 million in 2009 as compared to 2008. The increase in
expenses in 2009 was primarily due to our operations of Columbia
Regional Care Center as a result of our acquisition of Just Care
in Fourth Quarter. We also experienced higher costs at Florida
Civil Commitment Center due to start up costs associated with
the transfer of patients into the new facility.
Facility
Construction & Design
Generally, the operating expenses from the Facility Construction
& Design segment are offset by a similar amount of
revenues. Our overall increase in operating expenses relates to
the construction of the Blackwater River Correctional Facility
which increased expenses by $91.3 million. This increase
was offset by decreases related to the completion of several
facilities and expansions including South Florida Evaluation and
Treatment
61
Center, Northeast New Mexico Detention Facility, Florida Civil
Commitment Center and Graceville Correctional Facility.
Depreciation
and Amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. Detention & Corrections
|
|
$
|
35,855
|
|
|
|
4.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
33,770
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,085
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
%
|
International Services
|
|
|
1,448
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
|
|
1,556
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
|
(108
|
)
|
|
|
(6.9
|
)%
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
2,003
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
2,080
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
|
|
(77
|
)
|
|
|
(3.7
|
)%
|
Facility Construction & Design
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
39,306
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
37,406
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,900
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
Detention & Corrections
The increase in depreciation and amortization expense for
U.S. Detention & Corrections in 2009 compared to 2008
is primarily attributable to the opening of our Rio Grande
Detention Center in Fourth Quarter 2008 which increased
depreciation expense by $1.9 million.
International
Services
Depreciation and amortization expense as a percentage of segment
revenue in 2009 was consistent with 2008.
GEO
Care
The increase in depreciation and amortization expense for GEO
Care in 2009 compared to 2008 is primarily due to our
acquisition of Just Care.
Other
Unallocated Operating Expenses
General
and Administrative Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2008
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
General and Administrative Expenses
|
|
$
|
69,240
|
|
|
|
6.1
|
%
|
|
$
|
69,151
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
89
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
General and administrative expenses comprise substantially all
of our other unallocated expenses. General and administrative
expenses consist primarily of corporate management salaries and
benefits, professional fees and other administrative expenses.
General and administrative expenses remained consistent in the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2010 as compared to the fiscal
year ended December 28, 2008 but decreased as a percentage
of revenues. The decrease as a percentage of revenues is
primarily due to corporate cost savings initiatives including
those to reduce travel costs which were $2.3 million less
in 2009 and also by the increase in revenues which increased at
a higher rate than general and administrative expenses. These
savings were partially offset by increases in employee benefits
and labor costs.
62
Non
Operating Income and Expense
Interest
Income and Interest Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2008
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Interest Income
|
|
$
|
4,943
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
7,045
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
$
|
(2,102
|
)
|
|
|
(29.8
|
)%
|
Interest Expense
|
|
$
|
28,518
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
30,202
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
(1,684
|
)
|
|
|
(5.6
|
)%
|
The majority of our interest income generated in 2009 and 2008
is from the cash balances at our Australian subsidiary. The
decrease in the current period over the same period last year is
mainly attributable to currency exchange rates and, to a lesser
extent, lower interest rates.
The decrease in interest expense of $1.7 million is
primarily attributable to a decrease in LIBOR rates which
reduced the interest expense on our Prior Term Loan B by
$4.0 million. This decrease was offset by increased expense
related to the amortization of deferred financing fees
associated with the amendments to our Prior Senior Credit
Facility. This increase resulted in incremental amortization of
$1.6 million. In addition, we also had more indebtedness
outstanding in 2009 related to our
73/4% Senior
Notes which resulted in an increase to interest expense of
$1.9 million. Capitalized interest in 2009 and 2008 was
$4.9 million and $4.3 million, respectively. Total
borrowings at January 3, 2010 and December 28, 2008,
excluding non-recourse debt and capital lease liabilities, were
$457.5 million and $382.1 million, respectively.
In November 2009, we entered into interest rate swap agreements
with respect to a notional amount of $75.0 million of the
73/4% Senior
Notes which resulted in a savings in interest expense of
approximately $0.5 million for the fiscal year ended
January 3, 2010.
Provision
for Income Taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Effective Rate
|
|
2008
|
|
Effective Rate
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Income Tax Provision
|
|
$
|
42,079
|
|
|
|
40.1
|
%
|
|
$
|
34,033
|
|
|
|
37.3
|
%
|
The effective tax rate during 2009 was 40.1%, compared to 37.3%
in 2008, due to an increase in the reserve for uncertain tax
positions. The effective tax rate in 2008 included one-time
state tax benefits.
Equity in
Earnings of Affiliate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
2008
|
|
% of Revenue
|
|
$ Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Equity in Earnings of Affiliate
|
|
$
|
3,517
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
4,623
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
(1,106
|
)
|
|
|
(23.9
|
)%
|
Equity in earnings of affiliates represent the earnings of SACS
in 2009 and 2008 and reflects an overall decrease in earnings
related to unfavorable foreign currency exchange rates partially
offset by additional revenues due to contractual increases.
Financial
Condition
Business
Combination
On August 12, 2010, we completed our acquisition of Cornell, a
Houston-based provider of correctional, detention, educational,
rehabilitation and treatment services outsourced by federal,
state, county and local government agencies for adults and
juveniles. The acquisition was completed pursuant to a
definitive merger agreement entered into on April 18, 2010, and
amended on July 22, 2010, between us, GEO Acquisition III, Inc.,
and Cornell. Under the terms of the merger agreement, we
acquired 100% of the outstanding common stock of Cornell for
aggregate consideration of $618.3 million, excluding cash
acquired of $12.9 million and including: (i) cash payments for
Cornells outstanding common stock of $84.9 million, (ii)
payments made on behalf of Cornell related to Cornells
transaction costs accrued prior to the acquisition of $6.4
million, (iii) cash payments for the settlement of certain
of Cornells debt plus accrued interest of $181.9 million
using proceeds
63
from our senior credit facility, (iv) common stock consideration
of $357.8 million, and (v) the fair value of stock option
replacement awards of $0.2 million. The value of the equity
consideration was based on the closing price of the
Companys common stock on August 12, 2010 of $22.70.
Capital
Requirements
Our current cash requirements consist of amounts needed for
working capital, debt service, supply purchases, investments in
joint ventures, and capital expenditures related to either the
development of new correctional, detention, mental health,
residential treatment and re-entry facilities, or the
maintenance of existing facilities. In addition, some of our
management contracts require us to make substantial initial
expenditures of cash in connection with opening or renovating a
facility. Generally, these initial expenditures are subsequently
fully or partially recoverable as pass-through costs or are
billable as a component of the per diem rates or monthly fixed
fees to the contracting agency over the original term of the
contract. Additional capital needs may also arise in the future
with respect to possible acquisitions, other corporate
transactions or other corporate purposes.
We are currently developing a number of projects using company
financing. We estimate that these existing capital projects will
cost approximately $282.4 million, of which
$54.9 million was spent through the fiscal year ended
January 2, 2011. We have future committed capital projects
for which we estimate our remaining capital requirements to be
approximately $227.5 million, which will be spent in fiscal
years 2011 and 2012. Capital expenditures related to facility
maintenance costs are expected to range between
$20.0 million and $25.0 million for fiscal year 2011.
In addition to these current estimated capital requirements for
2011 and 2012, we are currently in the process of bidding on, or
evaluating potential bids for the design, construction and
management of a number of new projects. In the event that we win
bids for these projects and decide to self-finance their
construction, our capital requirements in 2011
and/or 2012
could materially increase.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
On August 4, 2010, we entered into a new Credit Agreement,
which we refer to as our Senior Credit Facility,
comprised of (i) a $150.0 million Term Loan A,
referred to as Term Loan A, initially bearing
interest at LIBOR plus 2.5% and maturing August 4, 2015,
(ii) a $200.0 million Term Loan B, referred to as
Term Loan B, initially bearing interest at LIBOR
plus 3.25% with a LIBOR floor of 1.50% and maturing
August 4, 2016 and (iii) a Revolving Credit Facility
(Revolver) of $400.0 million initially bearing
interest at LIBOR plus 2.5% and maturing August 4, 2015. On
August 4, 2010, we used proceeds from borrowings under the
Senior Credit Facility primarily to repay existing borrowings
and accrued interest under the Third Amended and Restated Credit
Agreement, which we refer to as our Prior Senior Credit
Agreement, of $267.7 million and to pay
$6.7 million for financing fees related to the Senior
Credit Facility. On August 4, 2010, our Prior Senior Credit
Agreement was terminated. On August 12, 2010, in connection
with the Merger, we used aggregate proceeds of
$290.0 million from the Term Loan A and the Revolver
primarily to repay Cornells obligations plus accrued
interest under its revolving line of credit due December 2011 of
$67.5 million, to repay its obligations plus accrued
interest under the existing 10.75% senior notes due July
2012 of $114.4 million, to pay $14.0 million in
transaction costs and to pay the cash component of the merger
consideration of $84.9 million. As of January 2, 2011,
we had $148.1 million outstanding under the Term Loan A,
$199.5 million outstanding under the Term Loan B, and our
$400.0 million Revolving Credit Facility had
$212.0 million outstanding in loans, $57.0 million
outstanding in letters of credit and $131.0 million
available for borrowings. We also had the ability to borrow
$250.0 million under the accordion feature of our Senior
Credit Facility subject to lender demand and market conditions.
Our significant debt obligations could have material
consequences. See Risk Factors Risks Related
to Our High Level of Indebtedness.
On February 8, 2011, we entered into Amendment No. 1
to the Credit Agreement, which we refer to as Amendment
No. 1. Amendment No. 1, among other things, amended
certain definitions and covenants relating to the total leverage
ratio and the senior secured leverage ratios set forth in the
Credit Agreement. Effective February 10, 2011, the
revolving credit commitments under the Senior Credit Facility
were increased by an aggregate principal amount equal to
$100.0 million, resulting in an aggregate of
$500.0 million of revolving
64
credit commitments. Also effective February 10, 2011, GEO
obtained an additional $150.0 million of term loans under
the Senior Credit Facility, specifically under a new
$150.0 million incremental Term Loan
A-2,
initially bearing interest at LIBOR plus 2.75%. Following the
execution of Amendment No. 1 and our obtaining the
additional $150.0 million incremental Term Loan
A-2, the
Senior Credit Facility is comprised of: a $150.0 million
Term Loan A maturing August 4, 2015; a $150.0 million
Term Loan
A-2 maturing
August 4, 2015; a $200.0 million Term Loan B maturing
August 4, 2016; and a $500.0 million Revolving Credit
Facility maturing August 4, 2015. We used the funds from
the new $150.0 million incremental Term Loan
A-2 along
with the net cash proceeds from the offering of the
6.625% Senior Notes to finance the acquisition of BI. As of
February 10, 2011, we had $146.3 million outstanding
under the Term Loan A, $150.0 million outstanding under the
Term Loan
A-2,
$199.0 million outstanding under the Term Loan B, and our
$500.0 million Revolving Credit Facility had
$210.0 million outstanding in loans, $56.2 million
outstanding in letters of credit and $233.8 million
available for borrowings. We also have the ability to borrow
$250.0 million under the accordion feature of our Senior
Credit Facility subject to lender demand and market conditions.
Our significant debt obligations could have material
consequences. See Risk Factors Risks Related
to Our High Level of Indebtedness.
We plan to fund all of our capital needs, including our capital
expenditures, from cash on hand, cash from operations,
borrowings under our Senior Credit Facility and any other
financings which our management and Board of Directors, in their
discretion, may consummate. Currently, our primary source of
liquidity to meet these requirements is cash flow from
operations and borrowings from the $500.0 million Revolver.
Our management believes that cash on hand, cash flows from
operations and availability under our Senior Credit Facility
will be adequate to support our capital requirements for 2011
disclosed in Capital Requirements above. In addition to
additional capital requirements which will be required relative
to the acquisitions of Cornell and BI, we are also in the
process of bidding on, or evaluating potential bids for, the
design, construction and management of a number of new projects.
In the event that we win bids for these projects and decide to
self-finance their construction, our capital requirements in
2011 and/or
2012 could materially increase. In that event, our cash on hand,
cash flows from operations and borrowings under the existing
Senior Credit Facility may not provide sufficient liquidity to
meet our capital needs through 2011 and we could be forced to
seek additional financing or refinance our existing
indebtedness. There can be no assurance that any such financing
or refinancing would be available to us on terms equal to or
more favorable than our current financing terms, or at all.
On February 22, 2010, our Board of Directors approved a
stock repurchase program for up to $80.0 million of our
common stock which was effective through March 31, 2011.
The stock repurchase program was implemented through purchases
made from time to time in the open market or in privately
negotiated transactions, in accordance with applicable
Securities and Exchange Commission requirements. The program
also included repurchases from time to time from executive
officers or directors of vested restricted stock
and/or
vested stock options. The stock repurchase program did not
obligate us to purchase any specific amount of our common stock
and could be suspended or extended at any time at our
discretion. During the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011,
we completed the program and purchased approximately
4.0 million shares of our common stock at a cost of
$80.0 million using cash on hand and cash flow from
operating activities. Also during the fiscal year ended
January 2, 2011, we repurchased 0.3 million shares of
common stock from certain directors and executives for an
aggregate cost of $7.1 million.
In the future, our access to capital and ability to compete for
future capital-intensive projects will also be dependent upon,
among other things, our ability to meet certain financial
covenants in the indenture governing the
73/4% Senior
Notes, the indenture governing the 6.625% Senior Notes and
our Senior Credit Facility. A substantial decline in our
financial performance could limit our access to capital pursuant
to these covenants and have a material adverse affect on our
liquidity and capital resources and, as a result, on our
financial condition and results of operations. In addition to
these foregoing potential constraints on our capital, a number
of state government agencies have been suffering from budget
deficits and liquidity issues. While we expect to be in
compliance with its debt covenants, if these constraints were to
intensify, our liquidity could be materially adversely impacted
as could our compliance with these debt covenants.
65
Executive
Retirement Agreements
As of January 2, 2011, we had a non-qualified deferred
compensation agreement with our Chief Executive Officer
(CEO). The current agreement provides for a lump sum
payment upon retirement, no sooner than age 55. As of
January 2, 2011, the CEO had reached age 55 and was
eligible to receive the payment upon retirement. Based on our
current capitalization, we do not believe that making this
payment would materially adversely impact our liquidity. Prior
to his effective retirement date of December 31, 2010,
Wayne H. Calabrese, our former Vice Chairman, President and
Chief Operating Officer, also had a deferred compensation
agreement under the non-qualified deferred compensation plan. As
a result of his retirement, we paid $4.4 million in
discounted retirement benefits under his non-qualified deferred
compensation agreement, inclusive of income tax
gross-up
payments.
We are also exposed to various commitments and contingencies
which may have a material adverse effect on our liquidity. See
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
Senior
Credit Facility
On August 4, 2010, we terminated our Prior Senior Credit
Agreement and executed our Senior Credit Facility by and among
GEO, as Borrower, BNP Paribas, as Administrative Agent, and the
lenders who are, or may from time to time become, a party
thereto. On February 8, 2011, we entered into Amendment No.
1 to the Senior Credit Facility. Indebtedness under the
Revolver, the Term Loan A and the Term Loan A-2 bears interest
based on the Total Leverage Ratio as of the most recent
determination date, as defined, in each of the instances below
at the stated rate:
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Rate under the Revolver,
|
|
|
Term Loan A and Term Loan A-2
|
|
LIBOR borrowings
|
|
LIBOR plus 2.00% to 3.00%.
|
Base rate borrowings
|
|
Prime Rate plus 1.00% to 2.00%.
|
Letters of credit
|
|
2.00% to 3.00%.
|
Unused Revolver
|
|
0.375% to 0.50%.
|
The Senior Credit Facility contains certain customary
representations and warranties, and certain customary covenants
that restrict our ability to, among other things as permitted
(i) create, incur or assume indebtedness, (ii) create,
incur, assume or permit liens, (iii) make loans and
investments, (iv) engage in mergers, acquisitions and asset
sales, (v) make restricted payments, (vi) issue, sell
or otherwise dispose of capital stock, (vii) engage in
transactions with affiliates, (viii) allow the total
leverage ratio or senior secured leverage ratio to exceed
certain maximum ratios or allow the interest coverage ratio to
be less than a certain ratio, (ix) cancel, forgive, make
any voluntary or optional payment or prepayment on, or redeem or
acquire for value any senior notes, (x) alter the business
we conduct, and (xi) materially impair our lenders
security interests in the collateral for our loans.
We must not exceed the following Total Leverage Ratios, as
computed at the end of each fiscal quarter for the immediately
preceding four quarter-period:
|
|
|
|
|
Total Leverage Ratio
|
Period
|
|
Maximum Ratio
|
|
Through and including the last day of the fiscal year 2011
|
|
5.25 to 1.00
|
First day of fiscal year 2012 through and including the last day
of fiscal year 2012
|
|
5.00 to 1.00
|
First day of fiscal year 2013 through and including the last day
of fiscal year 2013
|
|
4.75 to 1.00
|
Thereafter
|
|
4.25 to 1.00
|
66
The Senior Credit Facility also does not permit us to exceed the
following Senior Secured Leverage Ratios, as computed at the end
of each fiscal quarter for the immediately preceding four
quarter-period:
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Secured Leverage Ratio
|
Period
|
|
Maximum Ratio
|
|
Through and including the last day of the second quarter of the
fiscal year 2012
|
|
3.25 to 1.00
|
First day of the third quarter of fiscal year 2012 through and
including the last day of second quarter of the fiscal year 2013
|
|
3.00 to 1.00
|
Thereafter
|
|
2.75 to 1.00
|
Additionally, there is an Interest Coverage Ratio under which
the lender will not permit a ratio of less than 3.00 to 1.00
relative to (a) Adjusted EBITDA for any period of four
consecutive fiscal quarters to (b) Interest Expense, less
that attributable to non-recourse debt of unrestricted
subsidiaries.
Events of default under the Senior Credit Facility include, but
are not limited to, (i) our failure to pay principal or
interest when due, (ii) our material breach of any
representations or warranty, (iii) covenant defaults,
(iv) liquidation, reorganization or other relief relating
to bankruptcy or insolvency, (v) cross default under
certain other material indebtedness, (vi) unsatisfied final
judgments over a specified threshold, (vii) material
environmental liability claims which have been asserted against
us, and (viii) a change in control. All of the obligations
under the Senior Credit Facility are unconditionally guaranteed
by certain of our subsidiaries and secured by substantially all
of our present and future tangible and intangible assets and all
present and future tangible and intangible assets of each
guarantor, including but not limited to (i) a
first-priority pledge of substantially all of the outstanding
capital stock owned by us and each guarantor, and
(ii) perfected first-priority security interests in
substantially all of our, and each guarantors, present and
future tangible and intangible assets and the present and future
tangible and intangible assets of each guarantor. Our failure to
comply with any of the covenants under our Senior Credit
Facility could cause an event of default under such documents
and result in an acceleration of all of outstanding senior
secured indebtedness. We believe we were in compliance with all
of the covenants of the Senior Credit Facility as of
January 2, 2011.
On August 4, 2010, we used approximately $280 million
in aggregate proceeds from the Term Loan B and the Revolver
primarily to repay existing borrowings and accrued interest
under our Prior Senior Credit Facility Agreement of
$267.7 million and also used $6.7 million for
financing fees related to the Senior Credit Facility. We
received, as cash, the remaining proceeds of $3.2 million.
On August 12, 2010, we borrowed $290.0 million under
our Senior Credit Facility and used the aggregate cash proceeds
primarily for $84.9 million in cash consideration payments
to Cornells stockholders in connection with the Merger,
transaction costs of approximately $14.0 million, the
repayment of $181.9 million for Cornells
10.75% Senior Notes due July 2012 plus accrued interest and
Cornells Revolving Line of Credit due December 2011 plus
accrued interest. As of January 2, 2011, we had
$148.1 million outstanding under the Term Loan A,
$199.5 million outstanding under the Term Loan B, and our
$400.0 million Revolver had $212.0 million outstanding
in loans, $57.0 million outstanding in letters of credit
and $131.0 million available for borrowings. We intend to
use future borrowings for the purposes permitted under the
Senior Credit Facility, including for general corporate purposes.
On February 10, 2011, we used $150.0 million in
aggregate proceeds from the Term Loan
A-2 along
with $293.3 million of net proceeds from the offering of
the 6.625% Senior Notes to finance the cash consideration
for the closing of the BI Acquisition. As of February 10,
2011, we had $146.3 million outstanding under the Term Loan
A, $150.0 million outstanding under the Term Loan
A-2,
$199.0 million outstanding under the Term Loan B, and our
$500.0 million Revolving Credit Facility had
$210.0 million outstanding in loans, $56.2 million
outstanding in letters of credit and $233.8 million
available for borrowings. We intend to use future borrowings for
the purposes permitted under the Senior Credit Facility,
including for general corporate purposes.
We have accounted for the termination of our Prior Senior Credit
Agreement as an extinguishment of debt. In connection with
repayment of all outstanding borrowings and the termination of
the Prior Senior Credit Agreement, we wrote-off
$7.9 million of associated deferred financing fees in Third
Quarter 2010.
67
73/4% Senior
Notes
On October 20, 2009, we completed a private offering of
$250.0 million in aggregate principal amount of our
73/4% senior
notes due 2017, which we refer to as the
73/4% Senior
Notes. These senior unsecured notes pay interest semi-annually
in cash in arrears on April 15 and October 15 of each year,
beginning on April 15, 2010. We realized net proceeds of
$246.4 million at the close of the transaction, net of the
discount on the notes of $3.6 million. We used the net
proceeds of the offering to fund the repurchase of all of our
81/4% Senior
Notes due 2013 and pay down part of the Revolving Credit
Facility under the Prior Senior Credit Agreement.
The
73/4% Senior
Notes are guaranteed by certain subsidiaries and are unsecured,
senior obligations of GEO and these obligations rank as follows:
pari passu with any unsecured, senior indebtedness of GEO and
the guarantors; senior to any future indebtedness of GEO and the
guarantors that is expressly subordinated to the notes and the
guarantees; effectively junior to any secured indebtedness of
GEO and the guarantors, including indebtedness under our Senior
Credit Facility, to the extent of the value of the assets
securing such indebtedness; and structurally junior to all
obligations of our subsidiaries that are not guarantors.
On or after October 15, 2013, we may, at our option, redeem
all or a part of the
73/4% Senior
Notes upon not less than 30 nor more than 60 days
notice, at the redemption prices (expressed as percentages of
principal amount) set forth below, plus accrued and unpaid
interest and liquidated damages, if any, on the
73/4% Senior
Notes redeemed, to the applicable redemption date, if redeemed
during the
12-month
period beginning on October 15 of the years indicated below:
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Percentage
|
|
2013
|
|
103.875%
|
2014
|
|
101.938%
|
2015 and thereafter
|
|
100.000%
|
Before October 15, 2013, we may redeem some or all of the
73/4% Senior
Notes at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal
amount of each note to be redeemed plus a make-whole premium
together with accrued and unpaid interest and liquidated
damages, if any, to the date of redemption. In addition, at any
time on or prior to October 15, 2012, we may redeem up to
35% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes with the net
cash proceeds from specified equity offerings at a redemption
price equal to 107.750% of the principal amount of each note to
be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest and liquidated
damages, if any, to the date of redemption.
The indenture governing the notes contains certain covenants,
including limitations and restrictions on us and our restricted
subsidiaries ability to: incur additional indebtedness or
issue preferred stock; make dividend payments or other
restricted payments; create liens; sell assets; enter into
transactions with affiliates; and enter into mergers,
consolidations, or sales of all or substantially all of our
assets. As of the date of the indenture, all of our
subsidiaries, other than certain dormant domestic subsidiaries
and all foreign subsidiaries in existence on the date of the
indenture, were restricted subsidiaries. Our unrestricted
subsidiaries will not be subject to any of the restrictive
covenants in the indenture. Our failure to comply with certain
of the covenants under the indenture governing the
73/4% Notes
could cause an event of default of any indebtedness and result
in an acceleration of such indebtedness. In addition, there is a
cross-default provision which becomes enforceable upon failure
of payment of indebtedness at final maturity. We believe we were
in compliance with all of the covenants of the Indenture
governing the
73/4% Senior
Notes as of January 2, 2011.
6.625% Senior
Notes
On February 10, 2011, we completed a private offering of
$300.0 million in aggregate principal amount of ten-year,
6.625% senior unsecured notes due 2021. These senior
unsecured notes pay interest semi-annually in cash in arrears on
February 15 and August 15, beginning on August 15,
2011. We realized net proceeds of $293.3 million at the
close of the transaction. We used the net proceeds of the
offering together with borrowings of $150.0 million under
the Senior Credit Facility to finance the acquisition of B.I.
The remaining net proceeds from the offering were used for
general corporate purposes.
The 6.625% Senior Notes are guaranteed by certain
subsidiaries and are unsecured, senior obligations of GEO and
these obligations rank as follows: pari passu with any
unsecured, senior indebtedness of GEO and
68
the guarantors, including the
73/4% Senior
Notes; senior to any future indebtedness of GEO and the
guarantors that is expressly subordinated to the
6.625% Senior Notes and the guarantees; effectively junior
to any secured indebtedness of GEO and the guarantors, including
indebtedness under our Senior Credit Facility, to the extent of
the value of the assets securing such indebtedness; and
structurally junior to all obligations of our subsidiaries that
are not guarantors.
On or after February 15, 2016, we may, at our option,
redeem all or part of the 6.625% Senior Notes upon not less
than 30 nor more than 60 days notice, at the
redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal amount)
set forth below, plus accrued and unpaid interest and liquidated
damages, if any, on the 6.625% Senior Notes redeemed, to
the applicable redemption date, if redeemed during the
12-month
period beginning on February 15 of the years indicated below:
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Percentage
|
|
2016
|
|
103.3125%
|
2017
|
|
102.2083%
|
2018
|
|
101.1042%
|
2019 and thereafter
|
|
100.0000%
|
Before February 15, 2016, we may redeem some or all of the
6.625% Senior Notes at a redemption price equal to 100% of
the principal amount of each note to be redeemed plus a
make whole premium, together with accrued and unpaid
interest and liquidated damages, if any, to the date of
redemption. In addition, at any time before February 15,
2014, we may redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount
of the 6.625% Senior Notes with the net cash proceeds from
specified equity offerings at a redemption price equal to
106.625% of the principal amount of each note to be redeemed,
plus accrued and unpaid interest and liquidated damages, if any,
to the date of redemption.
The indenture governing the notes contains certain covenants,
including limitations and restrictions on us and our restricted
subsidiaries ability to: incur additional indebtedness or
issue preferred stock; make dividend payments or other
restricted payments; create liens; sell assets; enter into
transactions with affiliates; and enter into mergers,
consolidations or sales of all or substantially all of our
assets. As of the date of the indenture, all of our
subsidiaries, other than certain dormant domestic subsidiaries
and all foreign subsidiaries in existence on the date of the
indenture, were restricted subsidiaries. Our failure to comply
with certain of the covenants under the indenture governing the
6.625% Notes could cause an event of default of any
indebtedness and result in an acceleration of such indebtedness.
In addition, there is a cross-default provision which becomes
enforceable upon failure of payment of indebtedness at final
maturity. Our unrestricted subsidiaries will not be subject to
any of the restrictive covenants in the indenture.
Non-Recourse
Debt
South
Texas Detention Complex
We have a debt service requirement related to the development of
the South Texas Detention Complex, a 1,904-bed detention complex
in Frio County, Texas, acquired in November 2005 from
Correctional Services Corporation (CSC). CSC was
awarded the contract in February 2004 by the Department of
Homeland Security, ICE for development and operation of the
detention center. In order to finance the construction of the
complex, South Texas Local Development Corporation, referred to
as STLDC, was created and issued $49.5 million in taxable
revenue bonds. These bonds mature in February 2016 and have
fixed coupon rates between 4.34% and 5.07%. Additionally, we are
owed $5.0 million in the form of subordinated notes by
STLDC which represents the principal amount of financing
provided to STLDC by CSC for initial development.
We have an operating agreement with STLDC, the owner of the
complex, which provides us with the sole and exclusive right to
operate and manage the detention center. The operating agreement
and bond indenture require the revenue from the contract with
ICE be used to fund the periodic debt service requirements as
they become due. The net revenues, if any, after various
expenses such as trustee fees, property taxes and insurance
premiums are distributed to us to cover operating expenses and
management fees. We are responsible for the entire operations of
the facility including the payment of all operating expenses
69
whether or not there are sufficient revenues. STLDC has no
liabilities resulting from its ownership. The bonds have a ten
year term and are non-recourse to us and STLDC. The bonds are
fully insured and the sole source of payment for the bonds is
the operating revenues of the center. At the end of the ten year
term of the bonds, title and ownership of the facility transfers
from STLDC to us. We have determined that we are the primary
beneficiary of STLDC and consolidate the entity as a result.
On February 1, 2010, STLDC made a payment from its
restricted cash account of $4.6 million for the current
portion of our periodic debt service requirement in relation to
STLDC operating agreement and bond indenture. As of
January 2, 2011, the remaining balance of the debt service
requirement under the STLDC financing agreement is
$32.1 million, of which $4.8 million is due within the
next twelve months. Also as of January 2, 2011, included in
current restricted cash and non-current restricted cash is
$6.2 million and $9.3 million, respectively, as funds
held in trust with respect to the STLDC for debt service and
other reserves.
Northwest
Detention Center
On June 30, 2003, CSC arranged financing for the
construction of the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma,
Washington, referred to as the Northwest Detention Center, which
was completed and opened for operation in April 2004. We began
to operate this facility following our acquisition in November
2005. In connection with the original financing, CSC of Tacoma
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of CSC, issued a
$57.0 million note payable to the Washington Economic
Development Finance Authority, which we refer to as WEDFA, an
instrumentality of the State of Washington, which issued revenue
bonds and subsequently loaned the proceeds of the bond issuance
back to CSC for the purposes of constructing the Northwest
Detention Center. The bonds are non-recourse to us and the loan
from WEDFA to CSC is non-recourse to us. These bonds mature in
February 2014 and have fixed coupon rates between 3.80% and
4.10%.
The proceeds of the loan were disbursed into escrow accounts
held in trust to be used to pay the issuance costs for the
revenue bonds, to construct the Northwest Detention Center and
to establish debt service and other reserves. On October 1,
2010, CSC of Tacoma LLC made a payment from its restricted cash
account of $5.9 million for the current portion of its
periodic debt service requirement in relation to the WEDFA bond
indenture. As of January 2, 2011, the remaining balance of
the debt service requirement is $25.7 million, of which
$6.1 million is classified as current in the accompanying
balance sheet.
As of January 2, 2011, included in current restricted cash
and non-current restricted cash is $7.1 million and
$1.8 million, respectively, of funds held in trust with
respect to the Northwest Detention Center for debt service and
other reserves.
Municipal
Correctional Finance, L.P.
Municipal Correctional Finance, L.P., which we refer to as MCF,
our consolidated variable interest entity, is obligated for the
outstanding balance of the 8.47% Revenue Bonds. The bonds bear
interest at a rate of 8.47% per annum and are payable in
semi-annual installments of interest and annual installments of
principal. All unpaid principal and accrued interest on the
bonds is due on the earlier of August 1, 2016 (maturity) or
as noted under the bond documents. The bonds are limited,
nonrecourse obligations of MCF and are collateralized by the
property and equipment, bond reserves, assignment of subleases
and substantially all assets related to the facilities owned by
MCF. The bonds are not guaranteed by us or our subsidiaries.
The 8.47% Revenue Bond indenture provides for the establishment
and maintenance by MCF for the benefit of the trustee under the
indenture of a debt service reserve fund. As of January 2,
2011, the debt service reserve fund has a balance of
$23.4 million. The debt service reserve fund is available
to the trustee to pay debt service on the 8.47% Revenue Bonds
when needed, and to pay final debt service on the 8.47% Revenue
Bonds. If MCF is in default in its obligation under the 8.47%
Revenue Bonds indenture, the trustee may declare the principal
outstanding and accrued interest immediately due and payable.
MCF has the right to cure a default of non-payment obligations.
The 8.47% Revenue Bonds are subject to extraordinary mandatory
redemption in certain instances upon casualty or condemnation.
The 8.47% Revenue Bonds may be redeemed at the option of MCF
prior to their final scheduled payment dates at par plus accrued
interest plus a make-whole premium.
70
Australia
In connection with the financing and management of one
Australian facility, our wholly owned Australian subsidiary
financed the facilitys development and subsequent
expansion in 2003 with long-term debt obligations, which are
non-recourse to us and total $46.3 million and
$45.4 million at January 2, 2011 and January 3,
2010, respectively. As a condition of the loan, we are required
to maintain a restricted cash balance of AUD 5.0 million,
which, at January 2, 2011, was $5.1 million. The
amount is included in restricted cash and the annual maturities
of the future debt obligation are included in non-recourse debt.
The term of the non-recourse debt is through 2017 and it bears
interest at a variable rate quoted by certain Australian banks
plus 140 basis points. Any obligations or liabilities of
the subsidiary are matched by a similar or corresponding
commitment from the government of the State of Victoria.
Guarantees
In connection with the creation of SACS, we entered into certain
guarantees related to the financing, construction and operation
of the prison. We guaranteed certain obligations of SACS under
its debt agreements up to a maximum amount of 60.0 million
South African Rand, or $9.1 million, to SACS senior
lenders through the issuance of letters of credit. Additionally,
SACS is required to fund a restricted account for the payment of
certain costs in the event of contract termination. We have
guaranteed the payment of 60% of amounts which may be payable by
SACS into the restricted account and provided a standby letter
of credit of 8.4 million South African Rand, or
$1.3 million, as security for our guarantee. Our
obligations under this guarantee are indexed to the CPI and
expire upon the release from SACS of its obligations in respect
of the restricted account under its debt agreements. No amounts
have been drawn against these letters of credit, which are
included in our outstanding letters of credit under the Revolver.
We have agreed to provide a loan, if necessary, of up to
20.0 million South African Rand, or $3.0 million,
referred to as the Standby Facility, to SACS for the purpose of
financing SACS obligations under its contract with the
South African government. No amounts have been funded under the
Standby Facility, and we do not currently anticipate that such
funding will be required by SACS in the future. Our obligations
under the Standby Facility expire upon the earlier of full
funding or release from SACS of its obligations under its debt
agreements. The lenders ability to draw on the Standby
Facility is limited to certain circumstances, including
termination of the contract.
We have also guaranteed certain obligations of SACS to the
security trustee for SACS lenders. We have secured our
guarantee to the security trustee by ceding our rights to claims
against SACS in respect of any loans or other finance
agreements, and by pledging our shares in SACS. Our liability
under the guarantee is limited to the cession and pledge of
shares. The guarantee expires upon expiration of the cession and
pledge agreements.
In connection with a design, build, finance and maintenance
contract for a facility in Canada, we guaranteed certain
potential tax obligations of a
not-for-profit
entity. The potential estimated exposure of these obligations is
CAD 2.5 million, or $2.5 million commencing in 2017.
We have a liability of $1.8 million and $1.5 million
related to this exposure as of January 2, 2011 and
January 3, 2010, respectively. To secure this guarantee, we
purchased Canadian dollar denominated securities with maturities
matched to the estimated tax obligations in 2017 to 2021. We
have recorded an asset and a liability equal to the current fair
market value of those securities on our balance sheet. We do not
currently operate or manage this facility.
At January 2, 2011, we also had seven letters of guarantee
outstanding totaling $9.4 million under separate
international facilities relating to performance guarantee of
our Australian subsidiary. We do not have any off balance sheet
arrangements.
Derivatives
In November 2009, we executed three interest rate swap
agreements (the Agreements) in the aggregate
notional amount of $75.0 million. In January 2010, we
executed a fourth interest rate swap agreement in the notional
amount of $25.0 million. We have designated these interest
rate swaps as hedges against changes in
71
the fair value of a designated portion of the
73/4% Senior
Notes due to changes in underlying interest rates. The
Agreements, which have payment, expiration dates and call
provisions that mirror the terms of the
73/4% Senior
Notes, effectively convert $100.0 million of the
73/4% Senior
Notes into variable rate obligations. Each of the swaps has a
termination clause that gives the counterparty the right to
terminate the interest rate swaps at fair market value, under
certain circumstances. In addition to the termination clause,
the Agreements also have call provisions which specify that the
lender can elect to settle the swap for the call option price.
Under the Agreements, the Company receives a fixed interest rate
payment from the financial counterparties to the agreements
equal to
73/4%
per year calculated on the notional $100.0 million amount,
while it makes a variable interest rate payment to the same
counterparties equal to the three-month LIBOR plus a fixed
margin of between 4.16% and 4.29%, also calculated on the
notional $100.0 million amount. Changes in the fair value
of the interest rate swaps are recorded in earnings along with
related designated changes in the value of the
73/4% Senior
Notes. Total net gains (loss) recognized and recorded in
earnings related to these fair value hedges was
$5.2 million and $(1.9) million in the fiscal periods
ended January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010,
respectively. As of January 2, 2011 and January 3,
2010, the fair value of the swap assets (liabilities) was
$3.3 million and $(1.9) million, respectively. There
was no material ineffectiveness of these interest rate swaps
during the fiscal periods ended January 2, 2011.
Our Australian subsidiary is a party to an interest rate swap
agreement to fix the interest rate on the variable rate
non-recourse debt to 9.7%. We have determined the swap to be an
effective cash flow hedge. Accordingly, we record the value of
the interest rate swap in accumulated other comprehensive
income, net of applicable income taxes. There was no
ineffectiveness of this interest rate swap for the fiscal years
presented. The Company does not expect to enter into any
transactions during the next twelve months which would result in
the reclassification into earnings or losses associated with
this swap currently reported in accumulated other comprehensive
income (loss).
Contractual
Obligations and Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
The following is a table of certain of our contractual
obligations, as of January 2, 2011, which requires us to
make payments over the periods presented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Than
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Than
|
|
Contractual Obligations
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
1-3 Years
|
|
|
3-5 Years
|
|
|
5 Years
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Long-term debt obligations
|
|
$
|
250,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
250,000
|
|
Term Loans
|
|
|
347,625
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
32,125
|
|
|
|
163,500
|
|
|
|
142,500
|
|
Revolver
|
|
|
212,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
212,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease obligations (includes imputed interest)
|
|
|
22,564
|
|
|
|
1,950
|
|
|
|
3,900
|
|
|
|
3,872
|
|
|
|
12,842
|
|
Operating lease obligations
|
|
|
181,181
|
|
|
|
30,948
|
|
|
|
54,793
|
|
|
|
34,214
|
|
|
|
61,226
|
|
Non-recourse debt
|
|
|
212,445
|
|
|
|
31,290
|
|
|
|
68,897
|
|
|
|
71,880
|
|
|
|
40,378
|
|
Estimated interest payments on debt(a)
|
|
|
315,249
|
|
|
|
54,966
|
|
|
|
117,537
|
|
|
|
94,039
|
|
|
|
48,707
|
|
Estimated funding of pension and other post retirement benefits
|
|
|
13,380
|
|
|
|
5,944
|
|
|
|
470
|
|
|
|
580
|
|
|
|
6,386
|
|
Estimated construction commitments
|
|
|
227,500
|
|
|
|
202,300
|
|
|
|
25,200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated tax payments for uncertain tax positions(b)
|
|
|
4,035
|
|
|
|
2,243
|
|
|
|
1,792
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,785,979
|
|
|
$
|
339,141
|
|
|
$
|
304,714
|
|
|
$
|
580,085
|
|
|
$
|
562,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Due to the uncertainties of future LIBOR rates, the variable
interest payments on our Senior Credit Facility and swap
agreements were calculated using an average LIBOR rate of 2.87%
based on projected interest rates through fiscal 2016. |
(b) |
|
State income tax payments are reflected net of the federal
income tax benefit. |
We do not have any off balance sheet arrangements which would
subject us to additional liabilities.
72
On February 11, 2011, we announced the amendment of our
Senior Credit Facility and also announced the closing of our
offering of $300.0 million aggregate principal amounts of
senior unsecured notes due 2021. The obligation related to these
new debt arrangements is not included in the table above and is
summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual Obligations occurring after
|
|
|
|
|
Less Than
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Than
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended January 2, 2011
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
1-3 Years
|
|
|
3-5 Years
|
|
|
5 Years
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Term Loan A-2
|
|
$
|
150,000
|
|
|
$
|
5,625
|
|
|
$
|
20,625
|
|
|
$
|
123,750
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
6.625% Senior Notes due 2021
|
|
|
300,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300,000
|
|
Estimated interest payments on debt(c)
|
|
|
225,418
|
|
|
|
14,484
|
|
|
|
52,703
|
|
|
|
48,918
|
|
|
|
109,313
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
675,418
|
|
|
$
|
20,109
|
|
|
$
|
73,328
|
|
|
$
|
172,668
|
|
|
$
|
409,313
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) |
|
Due to the uncertainties of future LIBOR rates, the variable
interest payments on our Senior Credit Facility, as amended,
were calculated using an average LIBOR rate of 2.87% based on
projected interest rates through fiscal 2016. |
Cash
Flow
Cash and cash equivalents as of January 2, 2011 was
$39.7 million, compared to $33.9 million as of
January 3, 2010. During Fiscal Year 2010 we used cash flows
from operations, cash on hand, net cash proceeds from the
issuance of our
73/4% Senior
Notes and cash proceeds from our Senior Credit Facility to fund
our acquisition of Cornell in an amount of $260.3 million,
to fund $97.1 million in capital expenditures, to fund
$80.0 million for repurchases of common stock under our stock
repurchase program and $7.1 million for shares of common stock
purchased from certain directors and executives, and to fund our
operations.
Cash provided by operating activities of continuing operations
in 2010, 2009 and 2008 was $126.2 million,
$125.3 million, and $74.5 million, respectively. Cash
provided by operating activities of continuing operations in
2010 was impacted by changes in balance sheet assets and
liabilities such as the positive impact of the increase in
deferred income tax liabilities of $17.9 million partially
offset by the negative impact of an increase in accounts
receivable, prepaid expenses and other current assets of
$14.4 million. Cash flow from operations was also impacted
by the effect of certain significant non-cash items such as:
positive impacts of depreciation and amortization expense of
$48.1 million and the write-off of deferred financing fees
of $7.9 million associated with the termination of our
Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement in Third Quarter
2010. The increase in depreciation and amortization expense is
primarily the result of the additional amortization of
intangible assets and the depreciation of fixed assets acquired
in connection with our acquisition of Cornell. In 2009, cash
provided by operating activities of continuing operations was
positively impacted by an increase in net income attributable to
GEO of $7.1 million over the prior year as well as the
impact of certain non-cash items including depreciation and
amortization expense of $39.3 million and the write-off of
deferred financing fees of $6.8 million. Cash provided by
operating activities of continuing operations in 2008 was
primarily the result of increases in net income attributable to
GEO, increased by non-cash depreciation and amortization expense
partially offset by an increase in accounts receivable, prepaid
expenses and other current assets.
Cash used in investing activities in 2010 of $368.3 million
was primarily the result of our acquisition of Cornell in August
2010 for $260.3 million and capital expenditures of
$97.1 million compared to cash used in investing activities
during 2009 of $185.3 million which primarily consisted of
our acquisition of Just Care for $38.4 million and capital
expenditures of $149.8 million. Cash used in investing
activities during 2008 primarily consisted of capital
expenditures of $131.0 million.
Cash provided by financing activities in 2010 was
$243.7 million and reflects cash proceeds from our new
Credit Agreement consisting of $150.0 million in borrowings
under the Term Loan A, $200.0 million of borrowings under
the Term Loan B with a total discount of $2.0 million, and
of $378.0 million of borrowings under our Revolver. These
proceeds were offset by payments of $155.0 million for the
repayment of our Prior Term Loan B, payments of
$224.0 million on our Revolver, and payments of
$18.5 million on non-recourse debt, term loans and other
debt. In addition, we paid $80.0 million for repurchases of
common stock under our
73
stock repurchase program and $7.1 million for shares of
common stock which were purchased from certain directors and
executives and retired immediately after purchase.
Cash provided by financing activities in 2009 was
$51.9 million and reflects cash proceeds from the issuance
of our
73/4% Senior
Notes of $250.0 million and Prior Revolver borrowings of
$83.0 million. These proceeds were offset by payments of
$150.0 million for repayment of our
81/4% Senior
Notes, payments of $99.0 million on our Prior Revolver and
payments on non-recourse debt and Prior Term Loan B of
$17.8 million. Cash proceeds from our
73/4% Senior
Notes were primarily used to pay down our
81/4% Senior
Notes and our Prior Revolver.
Inflation
We believe that inflation, in general, did not have a material
effect on our results of operations during 2010, 2009 and 2008.
While some of our contracts include provisions for inflationary
indexing, inflation could have a substantial adverse effect on
our results of operations in the future to the extent that wages
and salaries, which represent our largest expense, increase at a
faster rate than the per diem or fixed rates received by us for
our management services.
Outlook
The following discussion of our future performance contains
statements that are not historical statements and, therefore,
constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Our
forward-looking statements are subject to risks and
uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ
materially from those stated or implied in the forward-looking
statement. Please refer to Item 1A. Risk
Factors in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
the Forward-Looking Statements Safe
Harbor, as well as the other disclosures contained in this
Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
for further discussion on forward-looking statements and the
risks and other factors that could prevent us from achieving our
goals and cause the assumptions underlying the forward-looking
statements and the actual results to differ materially from
those expressed in or implied by those forward-looking
statements.
With state and federal prison populations growing by
approximately 16% since 2000, the private corrections industry
has played an increasingly important role in addressing
U.S. detention and correctional needs. The number of State
and Federal prisoners housed in private facilities has increased
by 47% since the year 2000 with the Federal government and
states such as Arizona, Texas and Florida accounting for a
significant portion of the increase. At year-end 2009, 8.0% of
the estimated 1.6 million State and Federal prisoners
incarcerated in the United States were held in private
facilities, up from 6.3% in 2000. In addition to our strong
positions in Federal and State markets in the U.S., we believe
we are the only publicly traded U.S. correctional company
with international operations. With the existing operations in
South Africa, Australia, and the United Kingdom, we believe that
our international presence positions us to capitalize on growth
opportunities within the private corrections and detention
industry in new and established international markets.
We intend to pursue a diversified growth strategy by winning new
customers and contracts, expanding our government services
portfolio and pursuing selective acquisition opportunities. We
achieve organic growth through competitive bidding that begins
with the issuance by a government agency of a request for
proposal, or RFP. We primarily rely on the RFP process for
organic growth in our U.S. and international corrections
operations as well as in GEO Cares operations. We believe
that our long operating history and reputation have earned us
credibility with both existing and prospective clients when
bidding on new facility management contracts or when renewing
existing contracts. Our success in the RFP process has resulted
in a pipeline of new projects with significant revenue
potential. In 2010, we activated four new or expansion projects
representing an aggregate of 4,867 additional beds. This
compares to the eight new or expansion projects activated in
2009 representing 2,698 new beds. Also in 2010, we received
awards for 7,846 beds out of the aggregate total of 19,849 beds
awarded from governmental agencies under competitive bids during
2010, including competitive contract re-bids. As of
January 2, 2011, we have five facilities under various
stages of development or pending commencement of operations
which represent 3,444 beds. In addition to pursuing organic
growth through the RFP process, we will from time to time
selectively consider the financing and construction of new
facilities or expansions to existing facilities on a speculative
basis without having a signed contract with a known customer. We
also plan to leverage our experience to expand the range of
government-
74
outsourced services that we provide. We will continue to pursue
selected acquisition opportunities in our core services and
other government services areas that meet our criteria for
growth and profitability.
The strategic acquisitions of Cornell Companies and B.I.
Incorporated have further diversified GEO, creating a stronger
company with a full continuum of care service platform and
leading competitive positions in key market segments in the
corrections, detention, and rehabilitation treatment services
industry. From the development of facilities, to the intake and
housing of offenders, to the provision of transportation
functions as well as comprehensive medical, mental health and
rehabilitation services, to the reintegration and supervision of
offenders in the community, we believe governmental clients are
increasingly looking for full service, turnkey solutions that
can deliver enhanced quality and cost savings across a
comprehensive continuum of care. Following the completion of the
Cornell and BI acquisitions, we are positioned to provide
complementary, full service continuum of care solutions for our
numerous government clients.
Revenue
Domestically, we continue to be encouraged by the number of
opportunities that have recently developed in the privatized
corrections and detention industry. Overcrowding at corrections
facilities in various states and increased demand for bed space
at federal prisons and detention facilities are two of the
factors that have contributed to the opportunities for
privatization. However, these positive trends may in the future
be impacted by government budgetary constraints. Recently, we
have experienced a delay in cash receipts from California and
other states may follow suit. While improving economic
conditions have helped lower the number of states reporting new
fiscal year 2011 budget gaps and have dramatically increased the
number of states reporting stable revenue outlooks for the
remaining of fiscal year 2011, several states still face ongoing
budget shortfalls. According to the National Conference of State
Legislatures, fifteen states reported new gaps since fiscal year
2011 began with the sum of these budget imbalances totaling
$26.7 billion as of November 2010. Additionally,
35 states currently project budget gaps in fiscal year
2012. As a result of budgetary pressures, state correctional
agencies may pursue a number of cost savings initiatives which
may include the early release of inmates, changes to parole laws
and sentencing guidelines, and reductions in per diem rates
and/or the
scope of services provided by private operators. These potential
cost savings initiatives could have a material adverse impact on
our current operations
and/or our
ability to pursue new business opportunities. Additionally, if
state budgetary constraints, as discussed above, persist or
intensify, our state customers ability to pay us may be
impaired
and/or we
may be forced to renegotiate our management contracts on less
favorable terms and our financial condition results of
operations or cash flows could be materially adversely impacted.
We plan to actively bid on any new projects that fit our target
profile for profitability and operational risk. Although we are
pleased with the overall industry outlook, positive trends in
the industry may be offset by several factors, including
budgetary constraints, unanticipated contract terminations,
contract non-renewals,
and/or
contract re-bids. Although we have historically had a relative
high contract renewal rate, there can be no assurance that we
will be able to renew our expiring management contracts on
favorable terms, or at all. Also, while we are pleased with our
track record in re-bid situations, we cannot assure that we will
prevail in any such future situations.
Internationally, during the second half of fiscal year 2009 our
subsidiaries in the United Kingdom and Australia began the
operation and management under two new contracts with an
aggregate of 1,083 beds. In July 2010, our subsidiary in the
United Kingdom (referred to as the UK) began
operating the 360-bed expansion at Harmondsworth increasing the
capacity of that facility to 620 beds from 260 beds. We believe
there are additional opportunities in the UK such as the UK
governments solicitation of proposals for the management
of five existing managed-only prisons totaling approximately
5,700 beds. Additionally, we expect to compete on large-scale
transportation contracts in the UK where we have been
short-listed to submit proposals as part of a new venture we
have formed with a large UK-based fleet services company.
Finally, the UK government had announced plans to develop five
new 1,500-bed prisons to be financed, built and managed by the
private sector. GEO had gone through the prequalification
process for this procurement and had been invited to compete on
these opportunities. We are currently awaiting a revised
timeline from the governmental agency in the UK so we may
continue to pursue this project. We are continuing to monitor
this opportunity and, at this time, we believe the government in
the UK is reviewing this plan to determine the best way to
proceed. In South Africa, we have bid on projects for the
design, construction and operation of four 3,000-bed
75
prison projects totaling 12,000 beds. Requests for proposal were
issued in December 2008 and we submitted our bids on the
projects at the end of May 2009. The South African government
has announced that it intends to complete its evaluation of four
existing bids (including ours) by November 2011. No more than
two prison projects can be awarded to any one bidder. The New
Zealand government has also solicited expressions of interest
for a new design, build, finance and management contract for a
new correctional center for 960 beds, and our GEO Australia
subsidiary has been short-listed for participation in this
procurement. We believe that additional opportunities will
become available in international markets and we plan to
actively bid on any opportunities that fit our target profile
for profitability and operational risk.
With respect to our mental health, residential treatment, youth
services and re-entry services business conducted through our
wholly-owned subsidiary, GEO Care, we are currently pursuing a
number of business development opportunities. In connection with
our merger with Cornell in August 2010 and our acquisitions of
BI in February 2011, we have significantly expanded our
operations by adding 44 facilities and also the service
offerings of GEO Care by adding electronic monitoring services
and community re-entry and immigration related supervision
services. Through both organic growth and acquisitions, and
subsequent to our acquisition of BI in February 2011, we have
been able to grow GEO Cares business to approximately
6,500 beds and 60,000 offenders under community supervision.
GEO Care has also recently signed a contract for the management
and operation of the new 100-bed Montgomery County Mental Health
Treatment Facility in Texas, which is scheduled to open in March
2011. In addition, we continue to expend resources on informing
state and local governments about the benefits of privatization
and we anticipate that there will be new opportunities in the
future as those efforts begin to yield results. We believe we
are well positioned to capitalize on any suitable opportunities
that become available in this area.
Operating
Expenses
Operating expenses consist of those expenses incurred in the
operation and management of our contracts to provide services to
our governmental clients. Labor and related cost represented
56.3% of our operating expenses in the fiscal year 2010.
Additional significant operating expenses include food,
utilities and inmate medical costs. In 2010, operating expenses
totaled 76.8% of our consolidated revenues. Our operating
expenses as a percentage of revenue in 2011 will be impacted by
the opening of any new facilities. We also expect increases to
depreciation expense as a percentage of revenue due to carrying
costs we will incur for a newly constructed and expanded
facility for which we have no corresponding management contract
for the expansion beds and potential carrying costs of certain
facilities we acquired from Cornell with no corresponding
management contract. Additionally, we will experience increases
as a result of the amortization of intangible assets acquired in
connection with our acquisitions of Cornell and BI. In addition
to the factors discussed relative to our current operations, we
expect to experience overall increases in operating expenses as
a result of the acquisitions of Cornell and BI. As of
January 2, 2011, our worldwide operations include the
management
and/or
ownership of approximately 81,000 beds at 118 correctional,
detention and residential treatment, youth services and
community-based facilities including projects under development.
See discussion below relative to Synergies and Cost Savings.
General
and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses consist primarily of
corporate management salaries and benefits, professional fees
and other administrative expenses. In 2010, general and
administrative expenses totaled 8.4% of our consolidated
revenues. Excluding the impact of the merger with Cornell, we
expect general and administrative expenses as a percentage of
revenue in 2011 to be generally consistent with our general and
administrative expenses for 2010. In connection with our merger
with Cornell, we incurred approximately $25 million in
transaction costs, including $7.9 million in debt
extinguishment costs, during fiscal year ended 2010. In
connection with our acquisition of BI, we incurred
$7.7 million of acquisition related costs during fiscal
year 2010 and expect to incur between $3 million and
$4 million in the first fiscal quarter of 2011. We expect
business development costs to remain consistent as we pursue
additional business development opportunities in all of our
business lines and build the corporate infrastructure necessary
to support our mental health residential
76
treatment services business. We also plan to continue expending
resources from time to time on the evaluation of potential
acquisition targets.
Synergies
and Cost Savings
Our management anticipates annual synergies of approximately
$12-$15 million during the year following the completion of
the merger with Cornell and approximately $3-$5 million
during the year following our acquisition of BI. There may be
potential to achieve additional synergies thereafter. We believe
any such additional synergies would be achieved primarily from
greater operating efficiencies, capturing inherent economies of
scale and leveraging corporate resources. Any synergies achieved
should further enhance cash provided by operations and return on
invested capital of the combined company.
Forward-Looking
Statements Safe Harbor
This Annual Report on
Form 10-K
and the documents incorporated by reference herein contain
forward-looking statements within the meaning of
Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. Forward-looking statements are any
statements that are not based on historical information.
Statements other than statements of historical facts included in
this report, including, without limitation, statements regarding
our future financial position, business strategy, budgets,
projected costs and plans and objectives of management for
future operations, are forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements generally can be identified by the
use of forward-looking terminology such as may,
will, expect, anticipate,
intend, plan, believe,
seek, estimate or continue
or the negative of such words or variations of such words and
similar expressions. These statements are not guarantees of
future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and
assumptions, which are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual
outcomes and results may differ materially from what is
expressed or forecasted in such forward-looking statements and
we can give no assurance that such forward-looking statements
will prove to be correct. Important factors that could cause
actual results to differ materially from those expressed or
implied by the forward-looking statements, or cautionary
statements, include, but are not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
our ability to timely build
and/or open
facilities as planned, profitably manage such facilities and
successfully integrate such facilities into our operations
without substantial additional costs;
|
|
|
|
the instability of foreign exchange rates, exposing us to
currency risks in Australia, the United Kingdom, and South
Africa, or other countries in which we may choose to conduct our
business;
|
|
|
|
our ability to activate the inactive beds at our idle facilities;
|
|
|
|
an increase in unreimbursed labor rates;
|
|
|
|
our ability to expand, diversify and grow our correctional,
mental health and residential treatment services businesses;
|
|
|
|
our ability to win management contracts for which we have
submitted proposals and to retain existing management contracts;
|
|
|
|
our ability to raise new project development capital given the
often short-term nature of the customers commitment to use
newly developed facilities;
|
|
|
|
our ability to estimate the governments level of
dependency on privatized correctional services;
|
|
|
|
our ability to accurately project the size and growth of the
U.S. and international privatized corrections industry;
|
|
|
|
our ability to develop long-term earnings visibility;
|
|
|
|
our ability to identify suitable acquisitions and to
successfully complete and integrate such acquisitions on
satisfactory terms;
|
77
|
|
|
|
|
our ability to successfully integrate Cornell and BI into our
business within our expected time-frame and estimates regarding
integration costs;
|
|
|
|
our ability to accurately estimate the growth to our aggregate
annual revenues and the amount of annual synergies we can
achieve as a result of our acquisition of Cornell and BI;
|
|
|
|
our ability to successfully address any difficulties encountered
in maintaining relationships with customers, employees or
suppliers as a result of our acquisition of Cornell and BI;
|
|
|
|
our ability to obtain future financing on satisfactory terms or
at all, including our ability to secure the funding we need to
complete ongoing capital projects;
|
|
|
|
our exposure to rising general insurance costs;
|
|
|
|
our exposure to state and federal income tax law changes
internationally and domestically and our exposure as a result of
federal and international examinations of our tax returns or tax
positions;
|
|
|
|
our exposure to claims for which we are uninsured;
|
|
|
|
our exposure to rising employee and inmate medical costs;
|
|
|
|
our ability to maintain occupancy rates at our facilities;
|
|
|
|
our ability to manage costs and expenses relating to ongoing
litigation arising from our operations;
|
|
|
|
our ability to accurately estimate on an annual basis, loss
reserves related to general liability, workers
compensation and automobile liability claims;
|
|
|
|
the ability of our government customers to secure budgetary
appropriations to fund their payment obligations to us; and
|
|
|
|
other factors contained in our filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, or the SEC, including, but not limited to,
those detailed in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
our Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q
and our Current Reports on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC.
|
We undertake no obligation to update publicly any
forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new
information, future events or otherwise. All subsequent written
and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us, or
persons acting on our behalf, are expressly qualified in their
entirety by the cautionary statements included in this report.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
Interest
Rate Risk
We are exposed to market risks related to changes in interest
rates with respect to our Senior Credit Facility. Payments under
the Senior Credit Facility are indexed to a variable interest
rate. Based on borrowings outstanding under the Senior Credit
Facility of $557.8 million (net of discount of
$1.9 million) and $57.0 million in outstanding letters
of credit, as of January 2, 2011 for every one percent
increase in the interest rate applicable to the Senior Credit
Facility, our total annual interest expense would increase by
$5.6 million.
In November 2009, we executed three interest rate swap
agreements in the aggregate notional amount of
$75.0 million. These interest rate swaps, which have
payment, expiration dates and call provisions that mirror the
terms of the Notes, effectively convert $75.0 million of
the Notes into variable rate obligations. Under these interest
rate swaps, we receive a fixed interest rate payment from the
financial counterparties to the agreements equal to
73/4%
per year calculated on the notional $75.0 million amount,
while we make a variable interest rate payment to the same
counterparties equal to the three-month LIBOR plus a fixed
margin of between 4.16% and 4.29%, also calculated on the
notional $75.0 million amount. Effective January 6,
2010, we executed a fourth swap agreement relative to a notional
amount of $25.0 million of our
73/4% Senior
Notes (See Note 9). For every one percent increase in the
interest rate applicable to our aggregate notional
$100.0 million of swap agreements relative to the
73/4% Senior
Notes, our annual interest expense would increase by
$1.0 million.
78
We have entered into certain interest rate swap arrangements for
hedging purposes, fixing the interest rate on our Australian
non-recourse debt to 9.7%. The difference between the floating
rate and the swap rate on these instruments is recognized in
interest expense within the respective entity. Because the
interest rates with respect to these instruments are fixed, a
hypothetical 100 basis point change in the current interest
rate would not have a material impact on our financial condition
or results of operations.
Additionally, we invest our cash in a variety of short-term
financial instruments to provide a return. These instruments
generally consist of highly liquid investments with original
maturities at the date of purchase of three months or less.
While these instruments are subject to interest rate risk, a
hypothetical 100 basis point increase or decrease in market
interest rates would not have a material impact on our financial
condition or results of operations.
Foreign
Currency Exchange Rate Risk
We are exposed to market risks related to fluctuations in
foreign currency exchange rates between the U.S. Dollar,
the Australian Dollar, the Canadian Dollar, the South African
Rand and the British Pound currency exchange rates. Based upon
our foreign currency exchange rate exposure as of
January 2, 2011 with respect to our international
operations, every 10 percent change in historical currency
rates would have a $6.5 million effect on our financial
position and a $1.3 million impact on our results of
operations over the next fiscal year.
79
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
MANAGEMENTS
RESPONSIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
To the Shareholders of
The GEO Group, Inc.:
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been
prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States. They include amounts based on
judgments and estimates.
Representation in the consolidated financial statements and the
fairness and integrity of such statements are the responsibility
of management. In order to meet managements
responsibility, the Company maintains a system of internal
controls and procedures and a program of internal audits
designed to provide reasonable assurance that our assets are
controlled and safeguarded, that transactions are executed in
accordance with managements authorization and properly
recorded, and that accounting records may be relied upon in the
preparation of financial statements.
The consolidated financial statements have been audited by Grant
Thornton LLP, independent registered public accountants, whose
appointment by our Audit Committee was ratified by our
shareholders. Their report expresses a professional opinion as
to whether managements consolidated financial statements
considered in their entirety present fairly, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States,
the Companys financial position and results of operations.
Their audit was conducted in accordance with the standards of
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).
The effectiveness of our internal control over financial
reporting as of January 2, 2011 has been audited by Grant
Thornton LLP, independent registered public accountants, as
stated in their report which is included in this
Form 10-K.
The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors meets periodically
with representatives of management, the independent registered
public accountants and our internal auditors to review matters
relating to financial reporting, internal accounting controls
and auditing. Both the internal auditors and the independent
registered certified public accountants have unrestricted access
to the Audit Committee to discuss the results of their reviews.
George C. Zoley
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Brian R. Evans
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
80
MANAGEMENTS
ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL
OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in
Rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Companys
internal control over financial reporting is a process designed
under the supervision of the Companys Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer that: (i) pertains to
the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail,
accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions
of the Companys assets; (ii) provides reasonable
assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit
preparation of financial statements for external reporting in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States, and that receipts and expenditures are being made
only in accordance with authorization of the Companys
management and directors; and (iii) provides reasonable
assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the
Companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Management has assessed the effectiveness of the Companys
internal control over financial reporting as of January 2,
2011. In making its assessment of internal control over
financial reporting, management used the criteria set forth by
the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) of
the Treadway Commission in Internal Control
Integrated Framework.
On August 12, 2010, we acquired Cornell Companies, Inc.,
which we refer to as Cornell, at which time Cornell became our
subsidiary. We are currently in the process of assessing and
integrating Cornells internal controls over financial
reporting into our financial reporting systems.
Managements assessment of internal control over financial
reporting at January 2, 2011, excludes the operations of
Cornell as allowed by SEC guidance related to internal controls
of recently acquired entities. Management will include the
operations of Cornell in its assessment of internal control over
financial reporting within one year from the date of
acquisition. With the exception of Cornell Companies, Inc., the
Company evaluated, with the participation of its Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, its internal control over
financial reporting as of January 2, 2011, based on the
COSO Internal Control Integrated Framework. Based on
this evaluation, the Companys management concluded that as
of January 2, 2011, its internal control over financial
reporting is effective in providing reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Grant Thornton LLP, the independent registered public accounting
firm that audited the financial statements included in this
Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
has issued an attestation report on our internal control over
financial reporting.
81
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Board of Directors and Shareholders of
The GEO Group, Inc.
We have audited The GEO Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the
Company) internal control over financial reporting
as of January 2, 2011, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (COSO). The Companys management is responsible
for maintaining effective internal control over financial
reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, included in the
accompanying Managements Annual Report on Internal Control
Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on the Companys internal control over financial
reporting based on our audit. Our audit of, and opinion on, the
Companys internal control over financial reporting does
not include internal control over financial reporting of Cornell
Companies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary, whose financial
statements reflect total assets and revenues constituting 37 and
13 percent, respectively, of the related consolidated financial
statement amounts as of and for the year ended January 2,
2011. As indicated in Managements Report, Cornell
Companies, Inc. was acquired during 2010 and therefore,
managements assertion on the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting
excluded internal control over financial reporting of Cornell
Companies, Inc.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk
that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on
the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, The GEO Group, Inc. and subsidiaries maintained,
in all material respects, effective internal control over
financial reporting as of January 2, 2011, based on
criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework
issued by COSO.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of The GEO Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of January 2, 2011 and January 3,
2010, and the related consolidated statements of income,
shareholders equity and comprehensive income and cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended
January 2, 2011, and our report dated March 2, 2011
expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.
Miami, Florida
March 2, 2011
82
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Board of Directors and
Shareholders of The GEO Group, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
The GEO Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company)
as of January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010, and the
related consolidated statements of income, shareholders
equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended January 2, 2011. Our audits
of the basic financial statements included the financial
statement schedule listed in the index appearing under
Item 15. These financial statements and financial statement
schedule are the responsibility of the Companys
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements and financial statement schedule based on
our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred
to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of The GEO Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010, and the results
of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended January 2, 2011 in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America. Also in our opinion, the related financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all
material respects, the information set forth therein.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), The
GEO Group, Inc. and subsidiaries internal control over
financial reporting as of January 2, 2011, based on
criteria established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of
the Treadway Commission (COSO) and our report dated
March 2, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
Miami, Florida
March 2, 2011
83
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME
Fiscal
Years Ended January 2, 2011, January 3, 2010, and
December 28, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
1,269,968
|
|
|
$
|
1,141,090
|
|
|
$
|
1,043,006
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
975,020
|
|
|
|
897,099
|
|
|
|
822,053
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization
|
|
|
48,111
|
|
|
|
39,306
|
|
|
|
37,406
|
|
General and Administrative Expenses
|
|
|
106,364
|
|
|
|
69,240
|
|
|
|
69,151
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income
|
|
|
140,473
|
|
|
|
135,445
|
|
|
|
114,396
|
|
Interest Income
|
|
|
6,271
|
|
|
|
4,943
|
|
|
|
7,045
|
|
Interest Expense
|
|
|
(40,707
|
)
|
|
|
(28,518
|
)
|
|
|
(30,202
|
)
|
Loss on Extinguishment of Debt
|
|
|
(7,933
|
)
|
|
|
(6,839
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes, Equity in Earnings of
Affiliates, and Discontinued Operations
|
|
|
98,104
|
|
|
|
105,031
|
|
|
|
91,239
|
|
Provision for Income Taxes
|
|
|
39,532
|
|
|
|
42,079
|
|
|
|
34,033
|
|
Equity in Earnings of Affiliates, net of income tax
provision (benefit) of $2,212, $1,368 and ($805)
|
|
|
4,218
|
|
|
|
3,517
|
|
|
|
4,623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from Continuing Operations
|
|
|
62,790
|
|
|
|
66,469
|
|
|
|
61,829
|
|
Loss from Discontinued Operations, net of income tax
provision (benefit) of $0, ($216), and $236
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(346
|
)
|
|
|
(2,551
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
$
|
62,790
|
|
|
$
|
66,123
|
|
|
$
|
59,278
|
|
Loss (Earnings) Attributable to Noncontrolling
Interests
|
|
|
678
|
|
|
|
(169
|
)
|
|
|
(376
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income Attributable to The GEO Group,
Inc.
|
|
$
|
63,468
|
|
|
$
|
65,954
|
|
|
$
|
58,902
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
55,379
|
|
|
|
50,879
|
|
|
|
50,539
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
55,989
|
|
|
|
51,922
|
|
|
|
51,830
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income per Common Share Attributable to The GEO Group,
Inc.:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
1.15
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
$
|
1.22
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share basic
|
|
$
|
1.15
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
$
|
1.17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
1.13
|
|
|
$
|
1.28
|
|
|
$
|
1.19
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share diluted
|
|
$
|
1.13
|
|
|
$
|
1.27
|
|
|
$
|
1.14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive Income (Loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
62,790
|
|
|
$
|
66,123
|
|
|
$
|
59,278
|
|
Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
|
|
|
4,645
|
|
|
|
12,174
|
|
|
|
(14,361
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
67,435
|
|
|
|
78,297
|
|
|
|
44,917
|
|
Comprehensive (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling
interests
|
|
|
608
|
|
|
|
428
|
|
|
|
(210
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income attributable to The GEO Group, Inc.
|
|
$
|
68,043
|
|
|
$
|
78,725
|
|
|
$
|
44,707
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
84
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS
January 2,
2011 and January 3, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except
|
|
|
|
share data)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
39,664
|
|
|
$
|
33,856
|
|
Restricted cash and investments (including VIEs(1) of $34,049
and $6,212, respectively)
|
|
|
41,150
|
|
|
|
13,313
|
|
Accounts receivable, less allowance for doubtful accounts of
$1,308 and $429
|
|
|
275,484
|
|
|
|
200,756
|
|
Deferred income tax assets, net
|
|
|
32,126
|
|
|
|
17,020
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
36,710
|
|
|
|
14,689
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
425,134
|
|
|
|
279,634
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted Cash and Investments (including VIEs of
$33,266 and $8,182, respectively)
|
|
|
49,492
|
|
|
|
20,755
|
|
Property and Equipment, Net (including VIEs of
$167,209 and $28,282, respectively)
|
|
|
1,511,292
|
|
|
|
998,560
|
|
Assets Held for Sale
|
|
|
9,970
|
|
|
|
4,348
|
|
Direct Finance Lease Receivable
|
|
|
37,544
|
|
|
|
37,162
|
|
Deferred Income Tax Assets, Net
|
|
|
936
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
244,947
|
|
|
|
40,090
|
|
Intangible Assets, Net
|
|
|
87,813
|
|
|
|
17,579
|
|
Other Non-Current Assets
|
|
|
56,648
|
|
|
|
49,690
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
$
|
2,423,776
|
|
|
$
|
1,447,818
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
73,880
|
|
|
$
|
51,856
|
|
Accrued payroll and related taxes
|
|
|
33,361
|
|
|
|
25,209
|
|
Accrued expenses
|
|
|
121,647
|
|
|
|
80,759
|
|
Current portion of capital lease obligations, long-term debt and
non-recourse debt (including VIEs of $19,365 and $4,575,
respectively)
|
|
|
41,574
|
|
|
|
19,624
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
270,462
|
|
|
|
177,448
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Income Tax Liabilities
|
|
|
63,546
|
|
|
|
7,060
|
|
Other Non-Current Liabilities
|
|
|
46,862
|
|
|
|
33,142
|
|
Capital Lease Obligations
|
|
|
13,686
|
|
|
|
14,419
|
|
Long-Term Debt
|
|
|
798,336
|
|
|
|
453,860
|
|
Non-Recourse Debt (including VIEs of $132,078 and
$31,596, respectively)
|
|
|
191,394
|
|
|
|
96,791
|
|
Commitments and Contingencies (Note 15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 30,000,000 shares
authorized, none issued or outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 90,000,000 shares
authorized, 84,506,772 and 67,704,008 issued and 64,432,459 and
51,629,005 outstanding, respectively
|
|
|
845
|
|
|
|
516
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
718,489
|
|
|
|
351,550
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
428,545
|
|
|
|
365,927
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
|
|
10,071
|
|
|
|
5,496
|
|
Treasury stock 20,074,313 and 16,075,003 shares, at cost,
at January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010
|
|
|
(139,049
|
)
|
|
|
(58,888
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity attributable to The GEO Group,
Inc.
|
|
|
1,018,901
|
|
|
|
664,601
|
|
Noncontrolling interest
|
|
|
20,589
|
|
|
|
497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
1,039,490
|
|
|
|
665,098
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Shareholders Equity
|
|
$
|
2,423,776
|
|
|
$
|
1,447,818
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Variable interest entities or VIEs |
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
85
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Fiscal
Years Ended January 2, 2011, January 3, 2010, and
December 28, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow from Operating Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
62,790
|
|
|
$
|
66,123
|
|
|
$
|
59,278
|
|
Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
678
|
|
|
|
(169
|
)
|
|
|
(376
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to The GEO Group, Inc.
|
|
|
63,468
|
|
|
|
65,954
|
|
|
|
58,902
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income attributable to The GEO
Group, Inc. to net cash provided by operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock expense
|
|
|
3,261
|
|
|
|
3,509
|
|
|
|
3,015
|
|
Stock option plan expense
|
|
|
1,378
|
|
|
|
1,813
|
|
|
|
1,530
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expense
|
|
|
48,111
|
|
|
|
39,306
|
|
|
|
37,406
|
|
Amortization of debt issuance costs and discount
|
|
|
3,209
|
|
|
|
3,412
|
|
|
|
3,042
|
|
Deferred tax provision
|
|
|
17,941
|
|
|
|
10,010
|
|
|
|
2,656
|
|
Provision for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
815
|
|
|
|
139
|
|
|
|
602
|
|
Equity in earnings of affiliates, net of tax
|
|
|
(4,218
|
)
|
|
|
(3,517
|
)
|
|
|
(4,623
|
)
|
Income tax benefit of equity compensation
|
|
|
(3,926
|
)
|
|
|
(601
|
)
|
|
|
(786
|
)
|
(Gain) Loss on sale of property and equipment
|
|
|
(646
|
)
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
157
|
|
Loss on extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
7,933
|
|
|
|
6,839
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities, net of acquisition:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in accounts receivable, prepaid expenses and other assets
|
|
|
(14,350
|
)
|
|
|
3,057
|
|
|
|
(29,897
|
)
|
Changes in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other
liabilities
|
|
|
3,226
|
|
|
|
(4,753
|
)
|
|
|
2,478
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities of continuing
operations
|
|
|
126,202
|
|
|
|
125,287
|
|
|
|
74,482
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities of
discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,818
|
|
|
|
(3,013
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
126,202
|
|
|
|
131,105
|
|
|
|
71,469
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow from Investing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisitions, cash consideration, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
(260,255
|
)
|
|
|
(38,386
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Just Care purchase price adjustment
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of property and equipment
|
|
|
528
|
|
|
|
179
|
|
|
|
1,136
|
|
Purchase of shares in consolidated affiliate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,189
|
)
|
Change in restricted cash
|
|
|
(11,432
|
)
|
|
|
2,713
|
|
|
|
452
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(97,061
|
)
|
|
|
(149,779
|
)
|
|
|
(130,990
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(368,261
|
)
|
|
|
(185,273
|
)
|
|
|
(131,591
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow from Financing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends to noncontrolling interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(176
|
)
|
|
|
(125
|
)
|
Proceeds from long-term debt
|
|
|
726,000
|
|
|
|
333,000
|
|
|
|
156,000
|
|
Payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
(397,445
|
)
|
|
|
(267,474
|
)
|
|
|
(100,156
|
)
|
Income tax benefit of equity compensation
|
|
|
3,926
|
|
|
|
601
|
|
|
|
786
|
|
Debt issuance costs
|
|
|
(8,400
|
)
|
|
|
(17,253
|
)
|
|
|
(3,685
|
)
|
Termination of interest rate swap agreements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,719
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments for purchase of treasury shares
|
|
|
(80,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments for retirement of common stock
|
|
|
(7,078
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from the exercise of stock options
|
|
|
6,695
|
|
|
|
1,457
|
|
|
|
753
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
243,698
|
|
|
|
51,874
|
|
|
|
53,573
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of Exchange Rate Changes on Cash and Cash
Equivalents
|
|
|
4,169
|
|
|
|
4,495
|
|
|
|
(6,199
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash
Equivalents
|
|
|
5,808
|
|
|
|
2,201
|
|
|
|
(12,748
|
)
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, beginning of period
|
|
|
33,856
|
|
|
|
31,655
|
|
|
|
44,403
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, end of period
|
|
$
|
39,664
|
|
|
$
|
33,856
|
|
|
$
|
31,655
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Disclosures:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid during the year for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
$
|
34,475
|
|
|
$
|
34,185
|
|
|
$
|
29,895
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
$
|
36,310
|
|
|
$
|
32,075
|
|
|
$
|
34,486
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash investing and financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of assets acquired, net of cash acquired
|
|
$
|
680,378
|
|
|
$
|
44,239
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition, equity consideration
|
|
$
|
358,076
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities assumed
|
|
$
|
246,071
|
|
|
$
|
5,853
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures in accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
|
$
|
11,237
|
|
|
$
|
10,418
|
|
|
$
|
20,376
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
86
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF SHAREHOLDERS
EQUITY
AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Fiscal Years Ended January 2, 2011,
January 3, 2010, and December 28, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GEO Group Inc. Shareholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Treasury Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid-In
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncontrolling
|
|
|
Shareholders
|
|
|
|
of Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
of Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 30, 2007
|
|
|
50,976
|
|
|
$
|
510
|
|
|
$
|
338,092
|
|
|
$
|
241,071
|
|
|
$
|
6,920
|
|
|
|
(16,075
|
)
|
|
$
|
(58,888
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,642
|
|
|
$
|
529,347
|
|
Proceeds from stock options exercised
|
|
|
171
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
752
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
753
|
|
Tax benefit related to equity compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
786
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
786
|
|
Stock based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,530
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,530
|
|
Restricted stock granted
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock cancelled
|
|
|
(48
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of restricted stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,015
|
|
Purchase of subsidiary shares from noncontrolling interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(626
|
)
|
|
|
(626
|
)
|
Dividends paid to noncontrolling interest on subsidiary common
stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(125
|
)
|
|
|
(125
|
)
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58,902
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
376
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive loss (Note 3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14,195
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(166
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,917
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 28, 2008
|
|
|
51,123
|
|
|
|
511
|
|
|
|
344,175
|
|
|
|
299,973
|
|
|
|
(7,275
|
)
|
|
|
(16,075
|
)
|
|
|
(58,888
|
)
|
|
|
1,101
|
|
|
|
579,597
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from stock options exercised
|
|
|
372
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
1,454
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,457
|
|
Tax benefit related to equity compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
601
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
601
|
|
Stock based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,813
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,813
|
|
Restricted stock granted
|
|
|
168
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock cancelled
|
|
|
(34
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of restricted stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,509
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,509
|
|
Dividends paid to noncontrolling interest on subsidiary common
stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(176
|
)
|
|
|
(176
|
)
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65,954
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
169
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (Note 3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,771
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(597
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78,297
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, January 3, 2010
|
|
|
51,629
|
|
|
|
516
|
|
|
|
351,550
|
|
|
|
365,927
|
|
|
|
5,496
|
|
|
|
(16,075
|
)
|
|
|
(58,888
|
)
|
|
|
497
|
|
|
|
665,098
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from stock options exercised
|
|
|
1,353
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
6,681
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,695
|
|
Tax benefit related to equity compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,926
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,926
|
|
Stock based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,378
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,378
|
|
Restricted stock granted
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock cancelled
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Amortization of restricted stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,261
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,261
|
|
Common stock issued in business combination (Note 2)
|
|
|
15,764
|
|
|
|
158
|
|
|
|
357,918
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
358,076
|
|
Noncontrolling interest acquired in business combination
(Note 2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,700
|
|
|
|
20,700
|
|
Retirement of common stock
|
|
|
(314
|
)
|
|
|
158
|
|
|
|
(6,225
|
)
|
|
|
(850
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(161
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,078
|
)
|
Purchase of treasury shares
|
|
|
(3,999
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,999
|
)
|
|
|
(80,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(80,000
|
)
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63,468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(678
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (Note 3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,575
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67,435
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, January 2, 2011
|
|
|
64,432
|
|
|
$
|
845
|
|
|
$
|
718,489
|
|
|
$
|
428,545
|
|
|
$
|
10,071
|
|
|
|
(20,074
|
)
|
|
$
|
(139,049
|
)
|
|
$
|
20,589
|
|
|
$
|
1,039,490
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
87
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended January 2, 2011,
January 3, 2010, and December 28, 2008
|
|
1.
|
Summary
of Business Operations and Significant Accounting
Policies
|
The GEO Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, and subsidiaries
(the Company, or GEO) is a leading
developer and provider of government-outsourced services
specializing in the management of correctional, detention and
mental health residential treatment services facilities in the
United States, Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom
and Canada. On August 12, 2010, the Company acquired
Cornell Companies Inc. (Cornell), pursuant to a
definitive merger agreement (the Merger), and as of
January 2, 2011, the Companys worldwide operations
included the management
and/or
ownership of approximately 81,000 beds at 118 correctional,
detention and residential treatment facilities including
projects under development. The Company operates a broad range
of correctional and detention facilities including maximum,
medium and minimum security prisons, immigration detention
centers, minimum security detention centers, community based
services, youth services and mental health and residential
treatment facilities. We also provide secure transportation
services for offender and detainee populations as contracted.
The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States. The significant accounting policies of the
Company are described below.
Fiscal
Year
The Companys fiscal year ends on the Sunday closest to the
calendar year end. Fiscal year 2010 included 52 weeks.
Fiscal year 2009 included 53 weeks and fiscal year 2008
included 52 weeks. The Company reports the results of its
South African equity affiliate, South African Custodial Services
Pty. Limited, (SACS), its consolidated South African
entity, South African Custodial Management Pty. Limited
(SACM) and the activities of its consolidated
special purpose entity, Municipal Correctional Finance, L.P.
(MCF) on a calendar year end, due to the
availability of information.
Consolidation
The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the
accounts of the Company, its wholly-owned subsidiaries, and the
Companys activities relative to the financing of operating
facilities (the Companys variable interest entities are
discussed further in Note 1 and also in Notes 3 and
10). The equity method of accounting is used for investments in
non-controlled affiliates in which the Companys ownership
ranges from 20 to 50 percent, or in instances in which the
Company is able to exercise significant influence but not
control. The Company reports SACS under the equity method of
accounting. Noncontrolling interests in consolidated entities
represent equity that other investors have contributed to MCF
and SACM. Non-controlling interests are adjusted for income and
losses allocable to the other shareholders in these entities.
All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been
eliminated.
Reclassifications
The Companys noncontrolling interest in SACM has been
reclassified from operating expenses to noncontrolling interest
in the consolidated statements of income as this item has become
more significant due to the presentation of the noncontrolling
interest of MCF acquired from Cornell in the Merger. Also, as a
result of the acquisition of Cornell, managements review
of certain segment financial data was revised with regard to the
Bronx Community Re-entry Center and the Brooklyn Community
Re-entry Center. These facilities now report within the GEO Care
segment and are no longer included with U.S. Detention &
Corrections. The segment data has been revised for all periods
presented. All prior year amounts have been conformed to the
current year presentation.
88
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Discontinued
Operations
The termination of any of the Companys management
contracts, by expiration or otherwise, may result in the
classification of the operating results of such management
contract, net of taxes, as a discontinued operation. The Company
reflects such events as discontinued operations so long as the
financial results can be clearly identified, the operations and
cash flows are completely eliminated from ongoing operations,
and so long as the Company does not have any significant
continuing involvement in the operations of the component after
the disposal or termination transaction. The component unit for
which cash flows are considered to be completely eliminated
exists at the customer level. Historically, the Company has
classified operations as discontinued in the period they are
announced as normally all continuing cash flows cease within
three to six months of that date.
Use of
Estimates
The preparation of consolidated financial statements in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States requires management to make certain estimates,
judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of
assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and
liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the
reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting
period. The Companys significant estimates include
reserves for self-insured retention related to general liability
insurance, workers compensation insurance, auto liability
insurance, medical malpractice insurance, employer group health
insurance, percentage of completion and estimated cost to
complete for construction projects, estimated useful lives of
property and equipment, stock based compensation and allowance
for doubtful accounts. These estimates and assumptions affect
the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of
the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues
and expenses during the reporting period. While the Company
believes that such estimates are reasonable when considered in
conjunction with the consolidated financial statements taken as
a whole, the actual amounts of such estimates, when known, will
vary from these estimates. If actual results significantly
differ from the Companys estimates, the Companys
financial condition and results of operations could be
materially impacted.
During the first quarter of 2010, the Company completed a
depreciation study on its owned correctional facilities. In
evaluating useful lives of these assets, the Company considered
how long the assets will remain functionally efficient and
effective, given competitive factors, economic environment,
technological advancements and quality of construction. Based on
the results of the depreciation study, the Company revised the
estimated useful lives of certain buildings from its historical
estimate of 40 years to a revised estimate of
50 years, effective January 4, 2010. The basis for the
change in the useful life of the Companys owned
correctional facilities is due to the expectation that these
facilities are capable of being used for a longer period than
previously anticipated based on quality of construction and
effective building maintenance. The Company accounted for the
change in the useful lives as a change in estimate which was
accounted for prospectively beginning January 4, 2010 by
depreciating the assets carrying values over their revised
remaining useful lives. For fiscal year 2010, the change
resulted in a reduction in depreciation and amortization expense
of $3.7 million, an increase to net income of
$2.2 million and an increase in diluted earnings per share
of $0.04.
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents include all interest-bearing deposits
or investments with original maturities of three months or less.
The Company maintains cash and cash equivalents with various
financial institutions. These financial institutions are located
throughout the United States, Australia, South Africa, Canada
and the United Kingdom.
89
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Concentration
of Credit Risk
The Company maintains deposits of cash in excess of federally
insured limits with certain financial institutions and
accordingly, the Company is subject to credit risk. Other than
cash, financial instruments that potentially subject the Company
to concentrations of credit risk consist principally of trade
accounts receivable, a direct finance lease receivable,
long-term debt and financial instruments used in hedging
activities. The Companys cash management and investment
policies restrict investments to low-risk, highly liquid
securities, and the Company performs periodic evaluations of the
credit standing of the financial institutions with which it
deals.
Accounts
Receivable
Accounts receivable consists primarily of trade accounts
receivable due from federal, state, and local government
agencies for operating and managing correctional facilities,
providing youth and community based services, providing mental
health and residential treatment services, providing
construction and design services and providing inmate
residential and prisoner transportation services. The Company
generates receivables with its governmental clients and with
other parties in the normal course of business as a result of
billing and receiving payment. The Company regularly reviews
outstanding receivables, and provides for estimated losses
through an allowance for doubtful accounts. In evaluating the
level of established loss reserves, the Company makes judgments
regarding its customers ability to make required payments,
economic events and other factors. As the financial condition of
these parties change, circumstances develop or additional
information becomes available, adjustments to the allowance for
doubtful accounts may be required. The Company also performs
ongoing credit evaluations of customers financial
condition and generally does not require collateral. Generally,
the Company receives payment for these services thirty to sixty
days in arrears. However, certain of the Companys accounts
receivable, some of which relate to receivables purchased in
connection with the Cornell acquisition, are paid by customers
after the completion of their program year and therefore can be
aged in excess of one year. The Company maintains reserves for
potential credit losses, and such losses traditionally have been
within its expectations. Actual write-offs are charged against
the allowance when collection efforts have been unsuccessful. As
of January 2, 2011, $3.8 million of the Companys
trade receivables were considered to be long-term and are
classified as Other Non-Current Assets in the accompanying
Consolidated Balance Sheet.
Prepaid
Expenses and Other Current Assets
Prepaid expenses and other current assets include assets that
are expected to be realized within the next fiscal year.
Included in the balance at January 2, 2011 is
$17.3 million of federal and state income tax overpayments
that will be applied against tax payments due in 2011.
Notes
Receivable
The Company has notes receivable from its former joint venture
partner in the United Kingdom related to a subordinated loan
extended to the joint venture partner while an active member of
the partnership. The balance outstanding as of January 2,
2011 and January 3, 2010 was $3.2 million and
$3.5 million, respectively and is included in other
non-current assets in the accompanying balance sheets. The notes
bear interest at a rate of 13%, have semi-annual payments due
June 15 and December 15 through June 2018.
Restricted
Cash and Investments
The Companys restricted cash balances are attributable to:
(i) amounts held in escrow or in trust in connection with
the 1,904-bed South Texas Detention Complex in Frio County,
Texas and the 1,575-bed Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma,
Washington, (ii) certain cash restriction requirements at
the Companys wholly owned Australian subsidiary related to
the non-recourse debt and other guarantees,
(iii) MCFs bond fund payment account, debt servicing
reserve fund and escrow fund primarily used to
90
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
segregate rental payments from Cornell to MCF for the purposes
of servicing the non-recourse debt and making distributions to
equity holders, and (iv) amounts restricted to fund the GEO
Group Deferred Compensation Plan. The current portion of
restricted cash represents the amount expected to be paid within
the next twelve months for debt service and amounts that may be
paid as distributions to the equity holders of MCF under the
Agreement of Limited Partnership.
Direct
Finance Leases
The Company accounts for the portion of its contracts with
certain governmental agencies that represent capitalized lease
payments on buildings and equipment as investments in direct
finance leases. Accordingly, the minimum lease payments to be
received over the term of the leases less unearned income are
capitalized as the Companys investments in the leases.
Unearned income is recognized as income over the term of the
leases using the effective interest method.
Property
and Equipment
Property and equipment are stated at cost, less accumulated
depreciation. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line
method over the estimated useful lives of the related assets.
Buildings and improvements are depreciated over 2 to
50 years. Equipment and furniture and fixtures are
depreciated over 3 to 10 years. Accelerated methods of
depreciation are generally used for income tax purposes.
Leasehold improvements are amortized on a straight-line basis
over the shorter of the useful life of the improvement or the
term of the lease. The Company performs ongoing evaluations of
the estimated useful lives of the property and equipment for
depreciation purposes. The estimated useful lives are determined
and continually evaluated based on the period over which
services are expected to be rendered by the asset. If the
assessment indicates that assets will be used for a longer or
shorter period than previously anticipated, the useful lives of
the assets are revised, resulting in a change in estimate.
Maintenance and repairs are expensed as incurred. Interest is
capitalized in connection with the construction of correctional
and detention facilities. Capitalized interest is recorded as
part of the asset to which it relates and is amortized over the
assets estimated useful life.
The Company reviews long-lived assets to be held and used for
impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate
that the carrying amount of such assets may not be fully
recoverable. If a long-lived asset is part of a group that
includes other assets, the unit of accounting for the long-lived
asset is its group. Generally, the Company groups its assets by
facility for the purposes of considering whether any impairment
exists. Determination of recoverability is based on an estimate
of undiscounted future cash flows resulting from the use of the
asset or asset group and its eventual disposition. When
considering the future cash flows of a facility, the Company
makes assumptions based on historical experience with its
customers, terminal growth rates and weighted average cost of
capital. While these estimates do not generally have a material
impact on the impairment charges associated with managed-only
facilities, the sensitivity increases significantly when
considering the impairment on facilities that are either owned
or leased by the Company. Events that would trigger an
impairment assessment include deterioration of profits for a
business segment that has long-lived assets, or when other
changes occur that might impair recovery of long-lived assets
such as the termination of a management contract. Long-lived
assets to be disposed of are reported at the lower of carrying
amount or fair value less costs to sell. Measurement of an
impairment loss for long-lived assets that management expects to
hold and use is based on the fair value of the asset.
Assets
Held Under Capital Leases
Assets held under capital leases are recorded at the lower of
the net present value of the minimum lease payments or the fair
value of the leased asset at the inception of the lease.
Amortization expense is recognized using the straight-line
method over the shorter of the estimated useful life of the
asset or the term of the related lease and is included in
depreciation expense.
91
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets
The Companys goodwill is not amortized and is tested for
impairment annually and whenever events or circumstances arise
that indicate impairment may have occurred. Impairment testing
is performed for all reporting units that contain goodwill. For
the purposes of impairment testing, the Company determines the
recoverability of goodwill by comparing the carrying value of
the reporting unit, including goodwill, to the fair value of the
reporting unit. The reporting unit is the same as the operating
segment for U.S. Detention & Corrections and is
at a level below the operating segment for GEO Care. The Company
has identified its reporting units based on the criteria
management uses to make key decisions about the business. If the
fair value is determined to be less than the carrying value, the
Company computes the impairment charge as the excess of the
carrying value of the reporting unit goodwill over the implied
fair value of the reporting unit goodwill. For the purposes of
the goodwill impairment test, the Company determined fair value
of the reporting unit using a discounted cash flow model. Growth
rates for sales and profits are determined using inputs from the
Companys long term planning process. The Company also
makes estimates for discount rates and other factors based on
market conditions, historical experience and other environmental
factors. Changes in these forecasts could significantly impact
the fair value of the reporting unit. During the year,
management monitors the actual performance of the business
relative to the fair value assumptions used during the annual
impairment test. For the interim periods in the fiscal year
ended January 2, 2011, the Companys management did
not identify any triggering events that would require an update
to the annual impairment test. As such, the Company performed
its annual impairment test, on the measurement date of
October 4, 2010 which is on the first day of the
Companys fourth fiscal quarter and did not identify any
impairment in the carrying value of its goodwill. The estimated
fair value of the reporting units significantly exceeded the
carrying value of the reporting units. A 10% decrease in the
fair value of any of our reporting units as of October 4,
2010 would have had no impact on the carrying value of our
goodwill. There were no impairment charges recorded in the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2010. In the fiscal year ended
December 28, 2008, the Company wrote off goodwill of
$2.3 million associated with the termination of its
transportation services business in the United Kingdom. There
were no changes since the prior year to the methodology the
Company applies to determine the fair value of the reporting
units used in its goodwill test.
The Company has goodwill and other intangible assets as a result
of business combinations and also in connection with the
purchase of additional shares in the Companys consolidated
South African joint venture. Goodwill is recorded as the
difference, if any, between the aggregate consideration paid for
an acquisition and the fair value of the net tangible assets and
other intangible assets acquired. Other acquired intangible
assets are recognized separately if the benefit of the
intangible asset is obtained through contractual or other legal
rights, or if the intangible asset can be sold, transferred,
licensed, rented or exchanged, regardless of the Companys
intent to do so. The Companys other intangible assets have
finite lives and include facility management contracts and
non-compete agreements. The facility management contracts
represent customer relationships in the form of management
contracts acquired at the time of each business combination and
the non-compete agreements represent the estimated value of
contractually restricting certain employees from competing with
the Company. The Company currently amortizes its acquired
intangible assets with finite lives over periods ranging from
one to seventeen years considering the period and the pattern in
which the economic benefits of the intangible asset are consumed
or otherwise used up; or, if that pattern cannot be reliably
determined, using a straight-line amortization method over a
period that may be shorter than the ultimate life of such
intangible asset. There is no residual value associated with the
Companys finite-lived intangible assets. The Company
records the costs associated with renewal and extension of
facility management contracts as expenses in the period they are
incurred.
92
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Debt
Issuance Costs
Debt issuance costs totaling $14.8 million and
$17.9 million at January 2, 2011 and January 3,
2010, respectively, are included in other non-current assets in
the consolidated balance sheets and are amortized to interest
expense using the effective interest method, over the term of
the related debt.
Variable
Interest Entities
The Company evaluates its joint ventures and other entities in
which it has a variable interest (a VIE), generally
in the form of investments, loans, guarantees, or equity in
order to determine if it has a controlling financial interest
and is required to consolidate the entity as a result. The
reporting entity with a variable interest that provides the
entity with a controlling financial interest in the VIE will
have both of the following characteristics: (i) the power
to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact
the VIEs economic performance and (ii) the obligation
to absorb the losses of the VIE that could potentially be
significant to the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the
VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE.
The Company does not consolidate its 50% owned South African
joint venture in SACS, a VIE. SACS joint venture investors are
GEO and Kensani Holdings, Pty. Ltd; each partner owns a 50%
share. The Company has determined it is not the primary
beneficiary of SACS since it does not have the power to direct
the activities of SACS that most significantly impact its
performance. As such, this entity is accounted for as an equity
affiliate. SACS was established in 2001 and was subsequently
awarded a
25-year
contract to design, finance and build the Kutama Sinthumule
Correctional Centre in Louis Trichardt, South Africa. To fund
the construction of the prison, SACS obtained long-term
financing from its equity partners and lenders, the repayment of
which is fully guaranteed by the South African government,
except in the event of default, in which case the government
guarantee is reduced to 80%. The Companys maximum exposure
for loss under this contract is limited to its investment in
joint venture of $27.6 million at January 2, 2011 and
its guarantees related to SACS discussed in Note 14.
The Company consolidates South Texas Local Development
Corporation (STLDC), a VIE. STLDC was created to
finance construction for the development of a 1,904-bed facility
in Frio County, Texas. STLDC, the owner of the complex, issued
$49.5 million in taxable revenue bonds and has an operating
agreement with the Company, which provides the Company with the
sole and exclusive right to operate and manage the detention
center. The operating agreement and bond indenture require the
revenue from the contract be used to fund the periodic debt
service requirements as they become due. The net revenues, if
any, after various expenses such as trustee fees, property taxes
and insurance premiums are distributed to the Company to cover
operating expenses and management fees. The Company is
responsible for the entire operations of the facility including
the payment of all operating expenses whether or not there are
sufficient revenues. The bonds have a ten-year term and are
non-recourse to the Company. At the end of the ten-year term of
the bonds, title and ownership of the facility transfers from
STLDC to the Company. See Note 14.
As a result of the acquisition of Cornell in August 2010, the
Company assumed the variable interest in MCF of which it is the
primary beneficiary and consolidates the entity as a result. MCF
was created in August 2001 as a special limited partnership for
the purpose of acquiring, owning, leasing and operating low to
medium security adult and juvenile correction and treatment
facilities. At its inception, MCF purchased assets representing
eleven facilities from Cornell and leased those assets back to
Cornell under a Master Lease Agreement (the Lease).
These assets were purchased from Cornell using proceeds from the
8.47% Taxable Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 (8.47%
Revenue Bonds) due 2016, which are limited non-recourse
obligations of MCF and collateralized by the bond reserves,
assignment of subleases and substantially all assets related to
the eleven facilities. Under the terms of the Lease with
Cornell, assumed by the Company, the Company will lease the
assets for the remainder of the
20-year base
term, which ends in 2021, and has options at its sole discretion
to renew the Lease for up to approximately 25 additional years.
MCFs sole source of revenue is from the Company and as
such the Company has the power to direct the activities of the
VIE that most
93
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
significantly impact its performance. The Companys risk is
generally limited to the rental obligations under the operating
leases. This entity is included in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements and all intercompany transactions are
eliminated in consolidation.
Noncontrolling
Interests
Noncontrolling interests in consolidated entities represent
equity that other investors have contributed to MCF and the
noncontrolling interest in SACM. Noncontrolling interests are
adjusted for income and losses allocable to the other
shareholders in these entities.
Upon acquisition of Cornell, the Company assumed MCF as a
variable interest entity and allocated a portion of the purchase
price to the noncontrolling interest based on the estimated fair
value of MCF as of August 12, 2010. The noncontrolling
interest in MCF represents 100% of the equity in MCF which was
contributed by its partners at inception in 2001. The Company
includes the results of operations and financial position of
MCF, its variable interest entity, in its consolidated financial
statements. MCF owns eleven facilities which it leases to the
Company.
The Company includes the results of operations and financial
position of South African Custodial Management Pty. Limited
(SACM or the joint venture), its
majority-owned subsidiary, in its consolidated financial
statements. SACM was established in 2001 to operate correctional
centers in South Africa. The joint venture currently provides
security and other management services for the Kutama Sinthumule
Correctional Centre in the Republic of South Africa under a
25-year
management contract which commenced in February 2002. The
Companys and the second joint venture partners
shares in the profits of the joint venture are 88.75% and
11.25%, respectively. There were no changes in the
Companys ownership percentage of the consolidated
subsidiary during the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011.
Fair
Value Measurements
The Company carries certain of its assets and liabilities at
fair value, measured on a recurring basis, in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets. The Company also has certain assets
and liabilities which are not carried at fair value in its
accompanying balance sheets and discloses the fair value
measurements for those assets and liabilities in Note 11
and Note 12. The Company establishes fair value of its
assets and liabilities using a fair value hierarchy that
prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure
fair value into three broad levels which distinguish between
assumptions based on market data (observable inputs) and the
Companys assumptions (unobservable inputs). The level in
the fair value hierarchy within which the respective fair value
measurement falls is determined based on the lowest level input
that is significant to the measurement in its entirety.
Level 1 inputs are quoted market prices in active markets
for identical assets or liabilities, Level 2 inputs are
other than quotable market prices included in Level 1 that
are observable for the asset or liability either directly or
indirectly through corroboration with observable market data.
Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the assets or
liabilities that reflect managements own assumptions about
the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the
asset or liability.
Revenue
Recognition
Facility management revenues are recognized as services are
provided under facility management contracts with approved
government appropriations based on a net rate per day per inmate
or on a fixed monthly rate. A limited number of the
Companys contracts have provisions upon which a small
portion of the revenue for the contract is based on the
performance of certain targets. Revenue based on the performance
of certain targets is less than 2% of the Companys
consolidated annual revenues. These performance targets are
based on specific criteria to be met over specific periods of
time. Such criteria includes the Companys ability to
achieve certain contractual benchmarks relative to the quality
of service it provides, non-occurrence of certain disruptive
events, effectiveness of its quality control programs and its
responsiveness to customer
94
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
requirements and concerns. For the limited number of contracts
where revenue is based on the performance of certain targets,
revenue is either (i) recorded pro rata when revenue is
fixed and determinable or (ii) recorded when the specified
time period lapses. In many instances, the Company is a party to
more than one contract with a single entity. In these instances,
each contract is accounted for separately. The Company has not
recorded any revenue that is at risk due to future performance
contingencies.
Construction revenues are recognized from the Companys
contracts with certain customers to perform construction and
design services (project development services) for
various facilities. In these instances, the Company acts as the
primary developer and subcontracts with bonded National
and/or
Regional Design Build Contractors. These construction revenues
are recognized as earned on a percentage of completion basis
measured by the percentage of costs incurred to date as compared
to the estimated total cost for each contract. Provisions for
estimated losses on uncompleted contracts and changes to cost
estimates are made in the period in which the Company determines
that such losses and changes are probable. Typically, the
Company enters into fixed price contracts and does not perform
additional work unless approved change orders are in place.
Costs attributable to unapproved change orders are expensed in
the period in which the costs are incurred if the Company
believes that it is not probable that the costs will be
recovered through a change in the contract price. If the Company
believes that it is probable that the costs will be recovered
through a change in the contract price, costs related to
unapproved change orders are expensed in the period in which
they are incurred, and contract revenue is recognized to the
extent of the costs incurred. Revenue in excess of the costs
attributable to unapproved change orders is not recognized until
the change order is approved. Changes in job performance, job
conditions, and estimated profitability, including those arising
from contract penalty provisions, and final contract
settlements, may result in revisions to estimated costs and
income, and are recognized in the period in which the revisions
are determined. As the primary contractor, the Company is
exposed to the various risks associated with construction,
including the risk of cost overruns. Accordingly, the Company
records its construction revenue on a gross basis and includes
the related cost of construction activities in Operating
Expenses.
When evaluating multiple element arrangements for certain
contracts where the Company provides project development
services to its clients in addition to standard management
services, the Company follows revenue recognition guidance for
multiple element arrangements. This revenue recognition guidance
related to multiple deliverables in an arrangement provides
guidance on determining if separate contracts should be
evaluated as a single arrangement and if an arrangement involves
a single unit of accounting or separate units of accounting and
if the arrangement is determined to have separate units, how to
allocate amounts received in the arrangement for revenue
recognition purposes. In instances where the Company provides
these project development services and subsequent management
services, generally, the arrangement results in no delivered
elements at the onset of the agreement. The elements are
delivered over the contract period as the project development
and management services are performed. Project development
services are not provided separately to a customer without a
management contract. The Company can determine the fair value of
the undelivered management services contract and therefore, the
value of the project development deliverable, is determined
using the residual method.
Lease
Revenue
Prior to the acquisition of Cornell in August 2010, the Company
leased two of its owned facilities to the third parties, one of
which was Cornell. There is now only one owned facility that the
Company leases to an unrelated third party. The lease has a term
of ten years and expires in January 2018 with an option to
extend for up to three additional five-year terms. The carrying
value of this leased facility as of January 2, 2011 and
January 3, 2010 was $36.1 million and
$36.9 million, respectively, net of accumulated
depreciation of $3.2 million and $2.3 million,
respectively. Rental income received on this lease for the
fiscal years ended
95
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
January 2, 2011, January 3, 2010 and December 28,
2008 was $4.5 million, $4.5 million and
$4.4 million, respectively. Future minimum rentals on this
lease are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
Annual Rental
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
4,477
|
|
2012
|
|
|
4,489
|
|
2013
|
|
|
4,623
|
|
2014
|
|
|
4,762
|
|
2015
|
|
|
4,905
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
10,690
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
33,946
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income
Taxes
Deferred income taxes are determined based on the estimated
future tax effects of differences between the financial
statement and tax basis of assets and liabilities given the
provisions of enacted tax laws. Significant judgments are
required to determine the consolidated provision for income
taxes. Deferred income tax provisions and benefits are based on
changes to the assets or liabilities from year to year.
Realization of the Companys deferred tax assets is
dependent upon many factors such as tax regulations applicable
to the jurisdictions in which the Company operates, estimates of
future taxable income and the character of such taxable income.
Additionally, the Company must use significant judgment in
addressing uncertainties in the application of complex tax laws
and regulations. If actual circumstances differ from the
Companys assumptions, adjustments to the carrying value of
deferred tax assets or liabilities may be required, which may
result in an adverse impact on the results of its operations and
its effective tax rate. Valuation allowances are recorded
related to deferred tax assets based on the more likely
than not criteria. The Company has not made any
significant changes to the way it accounts for its deferred tax
assets and liabilities in any year presented in the consolidated
financial statements. Based on its estimate of future earnings
and its favorable earnings history, the Company currently
expects full realization of the deferred tax assets net of any
recorded valuation allowances. Furthermore, tax positions taken
by the Company may not be fully sustained upon examination by
the taxing authorities. In determining the adequacy of our
provision (benefit) for income taxes, potential settlement
outcomes resulting from income tax examinations are regularly
assessed. As such, the final outcome of tax examinations,
including the total amount payable or the timing of any such
payments upon resolution of these issues, cannot be estimated
with certainty.
Reserves
for Insurance Losses
The nature of the Companys business exposes it to various
types of third-party legal claims, including, but not limited
to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement
and/or
mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or
detainees, medical malpractice claims, product liability claims,
intellectual property infringement claims, claims relating to
employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment
discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour
claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile
liability claims, contractual claims and claims for personal
injury or other damages resulting from contact with our
facilities, programs, electronic monitoring products, personnel
or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoners
escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. In addition,
the Companys management contracts generally require it to
indemnify the governmental agency against any damages to which
the governmental agency may be subject in connection with such
claims or litigation. The Company maintains a broad program of
insurance coverage for these general types of claims, except for
claims relating to employment matters, for which the Company
carries no insurance. There can be no assurance that the
Companys insurance coverage will be adequate to cover all
claims to which it may be exposed. It is the Companys
general practice to bring merged or acquired companies into its
corporate master policies in order to take advantage of certain
economies of scale.
96
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Company currently maintains a general liability policy and
excess liability policy for U.S. Detention &
Corrections, GEO Cares Community-Based Services, GEO
Cares Youth Services and BI, Inc. with limits of
$62.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. A
separate $35.0 million limit applies to medical
professional liability claims arising out of correctional
healthcare services. The Companys wholly owned subsidiary,
GEO Care, Inc., has a separate insurance program for its
residential services division, with a specific loss limit of
$35.0 million per occurrence and in the aggregate with
respect to general liability and medical professional liability.
The Company is uninsured for any claims in excess of these
limits. The Company also maintains insurance to cover property
and other casualty risks including, workers compensation,
environmental liability and automobile liability.
For most casualty insurance policies, the Company carries
substantial deductibles or self-insured retentions
$3.0 million per occurrence for general liability and
hospital professional liability, $2.0 million per
occurrence for workers compensation and $1.0 million
per occurrence for automobile liability. In addition, certain of
the Companys facilities located in Florida and other
high-risk hurricane areas carry substantial windstorm
deductibles. Since hurricanes are considered unpredictable
future events, no reserves have been established to pre-fund for
potential windstorm damage. Limited commercial availability of
certain types of insurance relating to windstorm exposure in
coastal areas and earthquake exposure mainly in California may
prevent the Company from insuring some of its facilities to full
replacement value.
With respect to operations in South Africa, the United Kingdom
and Australia, the Company utilizes a combination of
locally-procured insurance and global policies to meet
contractual insurance requirements and protect the Company. The
Companys Australian subsidiary is required to carry tail
insurance on a general liability policy providing an extended
reporting period through 2011 related to a discontinued contract.
Of the reserves discussed above, the Companys most
significant insurance reserves relate to workers
compensation and general liability claims. These reserves are
undiscounted and were $40.2 million and $27.2 million
as of January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010,
respectively. The Company uses statistical and actuarial methods
to estimate amounts for claims that have been reported but not
paid and claims incurred but not reported. In applying these
methods and assessing their results, the Company considers such
factors as historical frequency and severity of claims at each
of its facilities, claim development, payment patterns and
changes in the nature of its business, among other factors. Such
factors are analyzed for each of the Companys business
segments. The Company estimates may be impacted by such factors
as increases in the market price for medical services and
unpredictability of the size of jury awards. The Company also
may experience variability between its estimates and the actual
settlement due to limitations inherent in the estimation
process, including its ability to estimate costs of processing
and settling claims in a timely manner as well as its ability to
accurately estimate the Companys exposure at the onset of
a claim. Because the Company has high deductible insurance
policies, the amount of its insurance expense is dependent on
its ability to control its claims experience. If actual losses
related to insurance claims significantly differ from the
Companys estimates, its financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows could be materially adversely impacted.
Comprehensive
Income
The Companys total comprehensive income is comprised of
net income attributable to The GEO Group, Inc., net income
attributable to noncontrolling interests, foreign currency
translation adjustments, net unrealized loss on derivative
instruments, and pension liability adjustments in the
Consolidated Statements of Shareholders Equity and
Comprehensive Income.
Foreign
Currency Translation
The Companys foreign operations use their local currencies
as their functional currencies. Assets and liabilities of the
operations are translated at the exchange rates in effect on the
balance sheet date and shareholders equity is translated
at historical rates. Income statement items are translated at
the average exchange rates for the year. The positive (negative)
impact of foreign currency fluctuation is included in
97
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
shareholders equity as a component of accumulated other
comprehensive income, net of income tax, and totaled $5.1
million, $10.7 million and ($10.7) million for the
fiscal years ended January 2, 2011, January 3, 2010
and December 28, 2008, respectively.
Derivatives
The Companys primary objective in holding derivatives is
to reduce the volatility of earnings and cash flows associated
with changes in interest rates. The Company measures its
derivative financial instruments at fair value and records
derivatives as either assets or liabilities on the balance
sheet. For derivatives that are designed as and qualify as
effective cash flow hedges, the portion of gain or loss on the
derivative instrument effective at offsetting changes in the
hedged item is reported as a component of accumulated other
comprehensive income and reclassified into earnings when the
hedged transaction affects earnings. For derivative instruments
that are designated as and qualify as effective fair value
hedges, the gain or loss on the derivative instruments as well
as the offsetting gain or loss on the hedged items attributable
to the hedged risk is recognized in current earnings as interest
income (expense) during the period of the change in fair values.
The Company formally documents all relationships between hedging
instruments and hedge items, as well as its risk-management
objective and strategy for undertaking various hedge
transactions. This process includes attributing all derivatives
that are designated as cash flow hedges to floating rate
liabilities and attributing all derivatives that are designated
as fair value hedges to fixed rate liabilities. The Company also
assesses whether each derivative is highly effective in
offsetting changes in the cash flows of the hedged item.
Fluctuations in the value of the derivative instruments are
generally offset by changes in the hedged item; however, if it
is determined that a derivative is not highly effective as a
hedge or if a derivative ceases to be a highly effective hedge,
the Company will discontinue hedge accounting prospectively for
the affected derivative.
Stock-Based
Compensation Expense
The Company recognizes the cost of stock based compensation
awards based upon the grant date fair value of those awards. The
Company uses a Black-Scholes option valuation model to estimate
the fair value of each option awarded. The impact of forfeitures
that may occur prior to vesting is also estimated and considered
in the amount recognized.
The fair value of stock-based awards was estimated using the
Black-Scholes option-pricing model with the following weighted
average assumptions for fiscal years ending 2010, 2009 and 2008,
respectively:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Risk free interest rates
|
|
|
0.16
|
%
|
|
|
2.00
|
%
|
|
|
2.87
|
%
|
Expected term
|
|
|
3 months
|
|
|
|
4-5years
|
|
|
|
4-5years
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
43
|
%
|
|
|
41
|
%
|
|
|
41
|
%
|
Expected dividend
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The options granted in 2010 were the replacement options granted
to former Cornell employees. Expected volatilities are based on
the historical and implied volatility of the Companys
common stock. The Company uses historical data to estimate award
exercises and employee terminations within the valuation model.
The expected term of the awards represents the period of time
that awards granted are expected to be outstanding and is based
on historical data and expected holding periods. For awards
granted as replacement stock options in 2010, the risk-free rate
is based on the rate for three-month U.S. Treasury Bonds,
which is consistent with the expected term of the award. For
awards granted in 2009 and 2008, the risk-free rate is based on
the rate for five year U.S. Treasury Bonds, which is
consistent with the expected term of the awards.
98
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Treasury
Stock
We account for repurchases of our common stock, if any, using
the cost method with common stock in treasury classified in our
consolidated balance sheets as a reduction of shareholders
equity.
On February 22, 2010, the Company announced that its Board
of Directors approved a stock repurchase program for up to
$80.0 million of the Companys common stock which was
effective through March 31, 2011. During the fiscal year
ended January 2, 2011, the Company completed repurchases of
shares of its common stock under the share repurchase program.
The stock repurchase program was implemented through purchases
made from time to time in the open market or in privately
negotiated transactions, in accordance with applicable
Securities and Exchange Commission requirements. The program
also included repurchases from time to time from executive
officers or directors of vested restricted stock
and/or
vested stock options. The stock repurchase program did not
obligate the Company to purchase any specific amount of its
common stock and could be extended or suspended at any time at
the Companys discretion. During the fiscal year ended
January 2, 2011, the Company completed the program and
purchased 4.0 million shares of its common stock, at an
aggregate cost of $80.0 million, using cash on hand and
cash flow from operating activities. Included in the shares
repurchased for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011 were
1.1 million shares repurchased from executive officers at
an aggregate cost of $22.3 million.
Earnings
Per Share
Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing income from
continuing operations by the weighted-average number of common
shares outstanding. The calculation of diluted earnings per
share is similar to that of basic earnings per share, except
that the denominator includes dilutive common share equivalents
such as share options and restricted shares.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
The Company implemented the following accounting standards in
the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011:
In December 2009, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2009-17,
previously known as FAS No. 167, Amendments to
FASB Interpretation No. FIN 46(R)
(SFAS No. 167). ASU
No. 2009-17
amends the manner in which entities evaluate whether
consolidation is required for VIEs. The consolidation
requirements under the revised guidance require a company to
consolidate a VIE if the entity has all three of the following
characteristics (i) the power, through voting rights or
similar rights, to direct the activities of a legal entity that
most significantly impact the entitys economic
performance, (ii) the obligation to absorb the expected
losses of the legal entity, and (iii) the right to receive
the expected residual returns of the legal entity. Further, this
guidance requires that companies continually evaluate VIEs for
consolidation, rather than assessing based upon the occurrence
of triggering events. As a result of adoption, which was
effective for the Companys interim and annual periods
beginning after November 15, 2009, companies are required
to enhance disclosures about how their involvement with a VIE
affects the financial statements and exposure to risks. The
implementation of this standard did not have a material impact
on the Companys financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.
In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-2
which addresses implementation issues related to changes in
ownership provisions of consolidated subsidiaries, investees and
joint ventures. The amendment clarifies that the scope of the
decrease in ownership provisions outlined in the current
consolidation guidance apply to (i) a subsidiary or group
of assets that is a business or nonprofit activity, (ii) a
subsidiary that is a business or nonprofit activity and is
transferred to an equity method investee or joint venture and
(iii) to an exchange of a group of assets that constitute a
business or nonprofit activity for a noncontrolling interest in
an entity. The amendment also makes certain other clarifications
and expands disclosures about the deconsolidation of a
subsidiary or derecognition of a group of assets within the
scope of the current consolidation guidance. These amendments
became effective for the Companys interim and annual
reporting periods
99
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
beginning after December 15, 2009. The implementation of
this standard did not have a material impact on the
Companys financial position, results of operations and
cash flows.
In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-6
which requires additional disclosures relative to transfers of
assets and liabilities between Levels 1 and 2 of the fair
value hierarchy. Additionally, the amendment requires companies
to present activity in the reconciliation for Level 3 fair
value measurements on a gross basis rather than on a net basis.
This update also provides clarification to existing disclosures
relative to the level of disaggregation and disclosure of inputs
and valuation techniques for fair value measurements that fall
into either Level 2 or Level 3. This amendment became
effective for the Companys interim and annual reporting
period after December 15, 2009, except for disclosures
related to activity in Level 3 fair value measurements
which are effective for the Companys first reporting
period beginning after December 15, 2010. The
implementation of this standard, relative to Levels 1 and 2
of the fair value hierarchy, did not have a material impact on
the Companys financial position, results of operations and
cash flows. The Company does not expect the adoption of the
standard relative to Level 3 investments to have a material
impact on the Companys financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
In July 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-20
which affects all entities with financing receivables, excluding
short-term trade accounts receivable or receivables measured at
fair value or lower of cost or fair value. The objective of the
amendments in this update is for an entity to provide
disclosures that facilitate financial statement users
evaluation of the following: (i) the nature of credit risk
inherent in the entitys portfolio of financing
receivables, (ii) how that risk is analyzed and assessed in
arriving at the allowance for credit losses, (iii) the
changes and reasons for those changes in the allowance for
credit losses. These disclosures are effective for the Company
for interim and annual reporting periods ending on or after
December 15, 2010. The implementation of this standard did
not have a material adverse impact on the Companys
financial position, results of operation and cash flows.
The following accounting standards will be adopted in future
periods:
In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2009-13
which provides amendments to revenue recognition criteria for
separating consideration in multiple element arrangements. As a
result of these amendments, multiple deliverable arrangements
will be separated more frequently than under existing GAAP. The
amendments, among other things, establish the selling price of a
deliverable, replace the term fair value with selling price and
eliminate the residual method so that consideration would be
allocated to the deliverables using the relative selling price
method. This amendment also significantly expands the disclosure
requirements for multiple element arrangements. This guidance
will become effective for the Company prospectively for revenue
arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years
beginning on or after June 15, 2010. The Company does not
believe that the implementation of this standard will have a
material adverse impact on its financial position, results of
operation and cash flows.
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-28
related to goodwill and intangible assets. Under current
guidance, testing for goodwill impairment is a two-step test.
When a goodwill impairment test is performed, an entity must
assess whether the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds
its fair value (Step 1). If it does, an entity must perform an
additional test to determine whether goodwill has been impaired
and to calculate the amount of that impairment (Step 2). The
objective of ASU No
2010-28 is
to address circumstances in which entities have reporting units
with zero or negative carrying amounts. The amendments in this
guidance modify Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for
reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts to
require an entity to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment
test if it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment
exists after considering certain qualitative characteristics, as
described in this guidance. This guidance will become effective
for the Company in fiscal years, and interim periods within
those years, beginning after December 15, 2010. The Company
currently does not have any reporting units with a zero or
negative carrying value and does not expect that the impact of
this accounting standard will have a material impact on the
Companys financial position, results of operations
and/or cash
flows.
100
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Also, in December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-29
related to financial statement disclosures for business
combinations entered into after the beginning of the first
annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15,
2010. The amendments in this guidance specify that if a public
entity presents comparative financial statements, the entity
should disclose revenue and earnings of the combined entity as
though the business combination(s) that occurred during the
current year had occurred as of the beginning of the comparable
prior annual reporting period only. These amendments also expand
the supplemental pro forma disclosures under current guidance
for business combinations to include a description of the nature
and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments
directly attributable to the business combination included in
the reported pro forma revenue and earnings. The amendments in
this update are effective prospectively for business
combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the
beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or
after December 15, 2010. The Company does not expect that
the impact of this accounting standard will have a material
impact on the Companys financial position, results of
operations
and/or cash
flows.
Acquisition
of Cornell Companies, Inc.
On August 12, 2010, the Company completed its acquisition
of Cornell pursuant to a definitive merger agreement entered
into on April 18, 2010, and amended on July 22, 2010,
between the Company, GEO Acquisition III, Inc., and Cornell.
Under the terms of the merger agreement, the Company acquired
100% of the outstanding common stock of Cornell for aggregate
consideration of $618.3 million, excluding cash acquired of
$12.9 million and including: (i) cash payments for
Cornells outstanding common stock of $84.9 million,
(ii) payments made on behalf of Cornell related to
Cornells transaction costs accrued prior to the
acquisition of $6.4 million, (iii) cash payments for
the settlement of certain of Cornells debt plus accrued
interest of $181.9 million using proceeds from GEOs
senior credit facility, (iv) common stock consideration of
$357.8 million, and (v) the fair value of stock option
replacement awards of $0.2 million. The value of the equity
consideration was based on the closing price of the
Companys common stock on August 12, 2010 of $22.70.
Purchase
price allocation
GEO is identified as the acquiring company for US GAAP
accounting purposes. Under the purchase method of accounting,
the aggregate purchase price is allocated to Cornells net
tangible and intangible assets based on their estimated fair
values as of August 12, 2010, the date of closing and the
date that GEO obtained control over Cornell. In order to
determine the fair values of a significant portion of the assets
acquired and liabilities assumed, the Company engaged third
party independent valuation specialists. The preliminary work
performed by the third party independent valuation specialists
has been considered in managements estimates of certain of
the fair values reflected in the purchase price allocation
below. For any other assets acquired and liabilities assumed for
which the Company is not considering the work of third party
independent valuation specialists, the fair value determined by
the Companys management represents the price management
believes would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer
a liability in an orderly transaction between market
participants. For long term assets, liabilities and the
noncontrolling interest in MCF for which there was no active
market price available for valuation, the Company used
Level 3 inputs to estimate the fair market value.
The allocation of the purchase price for this transaction at
August 12, 2010 has not been finalized. The primary areas
of the preliminary purchase price allocations that are not yet
finalized relate to the fair values of certain tangible assets
and liabilities acquired, the valuation of certain intangible
assets acquired and income taxes. The Company expects to
continue to obtain information to assist in determining the fair
value of the net assets acquired at the acquisition date during
the measurement period. Measurement period adjustments that the
Company determines to be material will be applied
retrospectively to the period of acquisition. The
101
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
purchase price of $618.3 million has been preliminarily
allocated to the estimated fair values of the assets acquired
and liabilities assumed as of August 12, 2010 as follows
(in 000s):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preliminary
|
|
|
|
Purchase Price
|
|
|
|
Allocation
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
$
|
55,142
|
|
Prepaid and other current assets
|
|
|
13,314
|
|
Deferred income tax assets
|
|
|
21,273
|
|
Restricted assets
|
|
|
44,096
|
|
Property and equipment
|
|
|
462,771
|
|
Intangible assets
|
|
|
75,800
|
|
Out of market lease assets
|
|
|
472
|
|
Other long-term assets
|
|
|
7,510
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets acquired
|
|
$
|
680,378
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
|
|
(56,918
|
)
|
Fair value of non-recourse debt
|
|
|
(120,943
|
)
|
Out of market lease liabilities
|
|
|
(24,071
|
)
|
Deferred income tax liabilities
|
|
|
(42,771
|
)
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(1,368
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities assumed
|
|
|
(246,071
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total identifiable net assets
|
|
|
434,307
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
204,724
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of Cornells net assets
|
|
|
639,031
|
|
Noncontrolling interest
|
|
|
(20,700
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total consideration for Cornell, net of cash acquired
|
|
$
|
618,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As shown above, the Company recorded $204.7 million of
goodwill related to the purchase of Cornell. The strategic
benefits of the Merger include the combined Companys
increased scale and the diversification of service offerings.
These factors contributed to the goodwill that was recorded upon
consummation of the transaction. Of the goodwill recorded in
relation to the Merger, only $1.5 million of goodwill
resulting from a previous Cornell acquisition is deductible for
federal income tax purposes; the remainder of goodwill is not
deductible. Included in net assets acquired is gross contractual
accounts receivable of approximately $62.8 million, of
which approximately $7.7 million is expected to be
uncollectible. Identifiable intangible assets purchased in the
acquisition and their weighted average amortization periods in
total and by major intangible asset class, as applicable, are
included in the table below (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
Amortization Period
|
|
|
as of August 12, 2010
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
$
|
204,724
|
|
Identifiable intangible assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility Management contracts
|
|
|
12.5 years
|
|
|
$
|
70,100
|
|
Covenants not to compete
|
|
|
1.8 years
|
|
|
|
5,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total identifiable intangible assets
|
|
|
11.7 years
|
|
|
$
|
75,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
102
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
As of January 2, 2011 the weighted average period before
the next contract renewal or extension for acquired Cornell
contracts was approximately one year. Although the contracts
have renewal and extension terms in the near future, Cornell has
historically maintained these relationships beyond the
contractual periods.
The following table sets forth amortization expense for each of
the five succeeding years and thereafter related to the
finite-lived intangible assets acquired during the fiscal year
ended January 2, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Detention &
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
Corrections
|
|
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
4,448
|
|
|
$
|
4,137
|
|
|
$
|
8,585
|
|
2012
|
|
|
3,680
|
|
|
|
3,385
|
|
|
|
7,065
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2,950
|
|
|
|
2,669
|
|
|
|
5,619
|
|
2014
|
|
|
2,950
|
|
|
|
2,669
|
|
|
|
5,619
|
|
2015
|
|
|
2,950
|
|
|
|
2,669
|
|
|
|
5,619
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
19,517
|
|
|
|
20,328
|
|
|
|
39,845
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net carrying value as of January 2, 2011
|
|
$
|
36,495
|
|
|
$
|
35,857
|
|
|
$
|
72,352
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma
financial information
The results of operations of Cornell are included in the
Companys results of operations from August 12, 2010.
The following unaudited pro forma information combines the
consolidated results of operations of the Company and Cornell as
if the acquisition had occurred at the beginning of fiscal year
2009. The pro forma financial information below has been
calculated after adjusting primarily for the following:
(i) depreciation and amortization expense that would have
been charged assuming the fair value adjustments to property and
equipment and intangible assets had been applied at the
beginning of fiscal year 2009; (ii) the impact of the
Companys $750.0 million Senior Credit Facility which
closed on August 4, 2010; (iii) the elimination of
$15.7 million in acquisition related expenses recognized in
the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011; and (iv) the
related tax effects at the estimated statutory income tax rate.
The pro forma amounts are included for comparative purposes and
may not necessarily reflect the results of operations that would
have resulted had the acquisition been completed at a date other
than as specified and may not be indicative of the results that
will be attained in the future. For the purposes of the table
and disclosure below, earnings is the same as net income
attributable to the GEO Group Inc., shareholders (in
000s):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended
|
|
|
January 2, 2011
|
|
January 3, 2010
|
|
Pro forma revenues
|
|
$
|
1,517.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,551.8
|
|
Pro forma net income attributable to the GEO Group Inc.,
shareholders
|
|
$
|
90.5
|
|
|
$
|
92.8
|
|
The Company has included revenue and earnings of
$151.1 million and $9.8 million, respectively, in its
consolidated statement of income for fiscal year ended
January 2, 2011 for Cornell activity since August 12,
2010, the date of acquisition.
Acquisition
of BII Holding
On December 21, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with BII
Holding, GEO Acquisition IV, Inc., a Delaware corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of GEO (Merger Sub), BII
Investors IF LP, in its capacity as the stockholders
representative, and AEA Investors 2006 Fund L.P.
(AEA). The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into BII Holding (the
Merger), with BII Holding (BI)
continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of
103
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
GEO. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the Company paid merger
consideration of $415.0 million in cash, subject to certain
adjustments, including an adjustment for working capital. All
indebtedness of BI under its senior term loan and senior
subordinated note purchase agreement was repaid by BI with a
portion of the $415.0 million of merger consideration.
Refer to Note 21.
Common
Stock
Each holder of the Companys common stock is entitled to
one vote per share on all matters to be voted upon by the
Companys shareholders. Upon any liquidation, dissolution
or winding up of the Company, the holders of common stock are
entitled to share equally in all assets available for
distribution after payment of all liabilities, subject to the
liquidation preference of shares of preferred stock, if any,
then outstanding. The Company did not pay any cash dividends on
its common stock for fiscal years 2010, 2009 or 2008. Future
dividends, if any, will depend, on the Companys future
earnings, its capital requirements, its financial condition and
on such other factors as the Board of Directors may take into
consideration.
Preferred
Stock
In April 1994, the Companys Board of Directors authorized
30 million shares of blank check preferred
stock. The Board of Directors is authorized to determine the
rights and privileges of any future issuance of preferred stock
such as voting and dividend rights, liquidation privileges,
redemption rights and conversion privileges.
Rights
Agreement
On October 9, 2003, the Company entered into a rights
agreement with EquiServe Trust Company, N.A., as rights
agent. Under the terms of the rights agreement, each share of
the Companys common stock carries with it one preferred
share purchase right. If the rights become exercisable pursuant
to the rights agreement, each right entitles the registered
holder to purchase from the Company one one-thousandth of a
share of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock at a
fixed price, subject to adjustment. Until a right is exercised,
the holder of the right has no right to vote or receive
dividends or any other rights as a shareholder as a result of
holding the right. The rights trade automatically with shares of
our common stock, and may only be exercised in connection with
certain attempts to acquire the Company. The rights are designed
to protect the interests of the Company and its shareholders
against coercive acquisition tactics and encourage potential
acquirers to negotiate with our Board of Directors before
attempting an acquisition. The rights may, but are not intended
to, deter acquisition proposals that may be in the interests of
the Companys shareholders.
Accumulated
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
Comprehensive income (loss) represents the change in
shareholders equity from transactions and other events and
circumstances arising from non-shareholder sources. The
Companys comprehensive income (loss) includes net income,
effect of foreign currency translation adjustments that arise
from consolidating foreign operations that do not impact cash
flows, projected benefit obligation recognized in other
comprehensive
104
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
income and the change in net unrealized gains or losses on
derivative instruments. The components of accumulated other
comprehensive income (loss) are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected Beneftt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognized in Other
|
|
|
Gains and Losses
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
Foreign Currency
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
on Derivative
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
|
Translation, Net
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Instruments
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Balance December 30, 2007
|
|
$
|
4,930
|
|
|
$
|
(1,621
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,611
|
|
|
$
|
6,920
|
|
Change in foreign currency translation, net of tax benefit of
$413
|
|
|
(10,742
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,742
|
)
|
Pension liabiltiy adjustment, net of tax expense of $17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
Unrealized loss on derivative instruments, net of tax benefit of
$2,113
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,480
|
)
|
|
|
(3,480
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance December 28, 2008
|
|
|
(5,812
|
)
|
|
|
(1,594
|
)
|
|
|
131
|
|
|
|
(7,275
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in foreign currency translation, net of tax expense of
$1,129
|
|
|
10,658
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,658
|
|
Pension liabiltiy adjustment, net of tax expense of $636
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
942
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
942
|
|
Unrealized gain on derivative instruments, net of income tax
benefit of $645
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,171
|
|
|
|
1,171
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance January 3, 2010
|
|
|
4,846
|
|
|
|
(652
|
)
|
|
|
1,302
|
|
|
|
5,496
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in foreign currency translation, net of tax expense of
$1,313
|
|
|
5,084
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,084
|
|
Pension liabilty adjustment, net of tax benefit of $232
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(383
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(383
|
)
|
Unrealized gain on derivative instruments, net of income tax
benefit of $69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(126
|
)
|
|
|
(126
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance January 2, 2011
|
|
$
|
9,930
|
|
|
$
|
(1,035
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,176
|
|
|
$
|
10,071
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
repurchases
On February 22, 2010, the Company announced that its Board
of Directors approved a stock repurchase program for up to
$80.0 million of the Companys common stock which was
effective through March 31, 2011. The stock repurchase
program was implemented through purchases made from time to time
in the open market or in privately negotiated transactions, in
accordance with applicable Securities and Exchange Commission
requirements. The program also included repurchases from time to
time from executive officers or directors of vested restricted
stock and/or
vested stock options. The stock repurchase program did not
obligate the Company to purchase any specific amount of its
common stock and could be suspended or extended at any time at
the Companys discretion. During the fiscal year ended
January 2 2011, the Company completed the program and purchased
4.0 million shares of its common stock at a cost of
$80.0 million using cash on hand and cash flow from
operating activities. Of the aggregate 4.0 million shares
repurchased during the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011,
1.1 million shares were repurchased from executive officers
at an aggregate cost of $22.3 million.
Also during the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011, the
Company repurchased 0.3 million shares of common stock from
certain directors and executives for an aggregate cost of
$7.1 million. These shares were retired by the Company
immediately upon repurchase.
105
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Noncontrolling
Interests
Upon acquisition of Cornell, the Company assumed MCF as a
variable interest entity and allocated a portion of the purchase
price to the noncontrolling interest based on the estimated fair
value of MCF as of August 12, 2010. The noncontrolling
interest in MCF represents 100% of the equity in MCF which was
contributed by its partners at inception in 2001. The Company
includes the results of operations and financial position of
MCF, its variable interest entity, in its consolidated financial
statements. MCF owns eleven facilities which it leases to the
Company.
The Company includes the results of operations and financial
position of South African Custodial Management Pty. Limited
(SACM or the joint venture), its
majority-owned subsidiary, in its consolidated financial
statements. SACM was established in 2001 to operate correctional
centers in South Africa. The joint venture currently provides
security and other management services for the Kutama Sinthumule
Correctional Centre in the Republic of South Africa under a
25-year
management contract which commenced in February 2002. The
Companys and the second joint venture partners
shares in the profits of the joint venture are 88.75% and
11.25%, respectively. There were no changes in the
Companys ownership percentage of the consolidated
subsidiary during the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011.
The noncontrolling interest as of January 2, 2011 and
January 3, 2010 is included in Total Shareholders
Equity in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. There
were no contributions from owners or distributions to owners in
the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011 or January 3,
2010.
|
|
4.
|
Equity
Incentive Plans
|
The Company had awards outstanding under four equity
compensation plans at January 2, 2011: The Wackenhut
Corrections Corporation 1994 Stock Option Plan (the 1994
Plan); the 1995 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan
(the 1995 Plan); the Wackenhut Corrections
Corporation 1999 Stock Option Plan (the 1999 Plan);
and The GEO Group, Inc. 2006 Stock Incentive Plan (the
2006 Plan and, together with the 1994 Plan, the 1995
Plan and the 1999 Plan, the Company Plans).
On August 12, 2010, the Companys Board of Directors
adopted and its shareholders approved an amendment to the 2006
Plan to increase the number of shares of common stock subject to
awards under the 2006 Plan by 2,000,000 shares from
2,400,000 to 4,400,000 shares of common stock. The 2006
Plan specifies that up to 1,083,000 of such total shares
pursuant to awards granted under the plan may constitute awards
other than stock options and stock appreciation rights,
including shares of restricted stock. See Restricted
Stock below for further discussion. As of January 2,
2011, the Company had 952,850 shares of common stock
available for issuance pursuant to future awards that may be
granted under the plan of which up to 351,722 were available for
the issuance of awards other than stock options. As a result of
the acquisition of Cornell, the Company issued 35,750
replacement stock option awards with an aggregate fair value as
of August 12, 2010 of $0.2 million which is included
in the purchase price consideration. These awards were fully
vested at the grant date and had a term of 90 days.
Except for 846,186 shares of restricted stock issued under
the 2006 Plan as of January 2, 2011, all of the awards
previously issued under the Company Plans consisted of stock
options. Although awards are currently outstanding under all of
the Company Plans, the Company may only grant new awards under
the 2006 Plan.
Under the terms of the Company Plans, the vesting period and, in
the case of stock options, the exercise price per share, are
determined by the terms of each plan. All stock options that
have been granted under the Company Plans are exercisable at the
fair market value of the common stock at the date of the grant.
Generally, the stock options vest and become exercisable ratably
over a four-year period, beginning immediately on the date of
the grant. However, the Board of Directors has exercised its
discretion to grant stock options that vest 100% immediately for
the Chief Executive Officer. In addition, stock options granted
to non-employee directors under the 1995 Plan became exercisable
immediately. All stock options awarded under the
106
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Company Plans expire no later than ten years after the date of
the grant, except for the replacement awards issued in
connection with the Cornell acquisition discussed above.
Stock
Options
A summary of the activity of the Companys stock options
plans is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wtd. Avg.
|
|
|
Wtd. Avg.
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Contractual Term
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Options outstanding at January 3, 2010
|
|
|
2,807
|
|
|
$
|
10.26
|
|
|
|
4.80
|
|
|
$
|
32,592
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
16.33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(1,353
|
)
|
|
|
4.95
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited/Canceled
|
|
|
(89
|
)
|
|
|
19.73
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options outstanding at January 2, 2011
|
|
|
1,401
|
|
|
$
|
15.01
|
|
|
|
5.84
|
|
|
$
|
13,517
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options exercisable at January 2, 2011
|
|
|
1,044
|
|
|
$
|
13.22
|
|
|
|
5.04
|
|
|
$
|
11,942
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The aggregate intrinsic value in the table above represents the
total pretax intrinsic value (i.e., the difference between the
Companys closing stock price on the last trading day of
fiscal year 2010 and the exercise price, times the number of
shares that are in the money) that would have been
received by the option holders had all option holders exercised
their options on January 2, 2011. This amount changes based
on the fair value of the companys stock. The total
intrinsic value of options exercised during the fiscal years
ended January 2, 2011, January 3, 2010, and
December 28, 2008 was $21.1 million,
$6.2 million, and $2.9 million, respectively.
The following table summarizes information about the exercise
prices and related information of stock options outstanding
under the Company Plans at January 2, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Outstanding
|
|
|
Options Exercisable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wtd. Avg.
|
|
|
Wtd. Avg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wtd. Avg.
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Exercise Prices
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Contractual Life
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
3.17 3.98
|
|
|
37,527
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
3.30
|
|
|
|
37,527
|
|
|
|
3.30
|
|
4.67 4.90
|
|
|
77,454
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
4.67
|
|
|
|
77,454
|
|
|
|
4.67
|
|
5.13 5.13
|
|
|
132,000
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
5.13
|
|
|
|
132,000
|
|
|
|
5.13
|
|
5.30 7.70
|
|
|
210,297
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
6.96
|
|
|
|
210,297
|
|
|
|
6.96
|
|
7.83 20.63
|
|
|
294,600
|
|
|
|
6.4
|
|
|
|
15.62
|
|
|
|
214,000
|
|
|
|
15.07
|
|
21.07 21.56
|
|
|
647,700
|
|
|
|
7.6
|
|
|
|
21.26
|
|
|
|
372,600
|
|
|
|
21.34
|
|
21.64 28.24
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
21.70
|
|
|
|
400
|
|
|
|
21.70
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,400,578
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
|
|
$
|
15.01
|
|
|
|
1,044,278
|
|
|
$
|
13.22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the years ended January 2, 2011, January 3, 2010
and December 28, 2008, the amount of stock-based
compensation expense related to stock options was
$1.4 million, $1.8 million and $1.5 million,
respectively. The weighted average grant date fair value of
options granted during the fiscal years ended January 2,
2011 and January 3, 2010 and December 28, 2008 was
$6.73, $7.41 and $6.58 per share, respectively.
107
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table summarizes the status of non-vested stock
options as of January 2, 2011 and changes during the fiscal
year ending January 2, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wtd. Avg. Grant
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
Date Fair Value
|
|
|
Options non-vested at January 3, 2010
|
|
|
595,758
|
|
|
$
|
7.39
|
|
Granted(a)
|
|
|
35,750
|
|
|
|
6.73
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(227,408
|
)
|
|
|
7.32
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(47,800
|
)
|
|
|
7.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options non-vested at January 2, 2011
|
|
|
356,300
|
|
|
$
|
7.37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
These options were granted as replacement awards to former
Cornell option holders. The options were fully vested at the
acquisition date and the fair value of the awards was included
in purchase price consideration. |
As of January 2, 2011, the Company had $1.9 million of
unrecognized compensation costs related to non-vested stock
option awards that are expected to be recognized over a weighted
average period of 2.5 years. The total fair value of shares
vested during the fiscal years ended January 2, 2011,
January 3, 2010 and December 28, 2008, was
$2.1 million, $1.8 million and $1.2 million,
respectively. Proceeds received from stock options exercises for
2010, 2009 and 2008 was $6.7 million, $1.5 million and
$0.8 million, respectively. Additional tax benefits
realized from tax deductions associated with the exercise of
stock options and the vesting of restricted stock activity for
2010, 2009 and 2008 totaled $3.9 million, $0.6 million
and $0.8 million, respectively.
Restricted
Stock
Shares of restricted stock become unrestricted shares of common
stock upon vesting on a
one-for-one
basis. The cost of these awards is determined using the fair
value of the Companys common stock on the date of the
grant and compensation expense is recognized over the vesting
period. The shares of restricted stock granted under the 2006
Plan vest in equal 25% increments on each of the four
anniversary dates immediately following the date of grant. A
summary of the activity of restricted stock is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wtd. Avg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant date
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Fair value
|
|
|
Restricted stock outstanding at January 3, 2010
|
|
|
383,100
|
|
|
$
|
19.66
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
40,280
|
|
|
|
22.70
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(222,100
|
)
|
|
|
18.84
|
|
Forfeited/Canceled
|
|
|
(40,750
|
)
|
|
|
21.38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock outstanding at January 2, 2011
|
|
|
160,530
|
|
|
$
|
21.12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011,
January 3, 2010 and December 28, 2008, the Company
recognized $3.3 million, $3.5 million and
$3.0 million, respectively, of compensation expense related
to its outstanding shares of restricted stock. As of
January 2, 2011, the Company had $2.2 million of
unrecognized compensation expense that is expected to be
recognized over a weighted average period of 2.0 years.
|
|
5.
|
Discontinued
Operations
|
During the fiscal year 2008, the Company discontinued operations
at certain of its domestic and international subsidiaries. Where
significant, the results of operations, net of taxes, as further
described below, have been reflected in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements as such for all periods
presented.
108
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
U.S. Detention & Corrections. On
November 7, 2008, the Company announced its receipt of
notice for the discontinuation of its contract with the State of
Idaho, Department of Correction (Idaho DOC) for the
housing of approximately 305
out-of-state
inmates at the managed-only Bill Clayton Detention Center (the
Detention Center) effective January 5, 2009. On
August 29, 2008, the Company announced its discontinuation
of its contract with Delaware County, Pennsylvania for the
management of the county-owned 1,883-bed George W. Hill
Correctional Facility effective December 31, 2008.
International Services. On December 22,
2008, the Company announced the closure of its U.K.-based
transportation division, Recruitment Solutions International
(RSI). As a result of the termination of its
transportation business in the United Kingdom, the Company wrote
off assets of $2.6 million including goodwill of
$2.3 million.
GEO Care. On June 16, 2008, the Company
announced the discontinuation by mutual agreement of its
contract with the State of New Mexico Department of Health for
the management of the Fort Bayard Medical Center effective
June 30, 2008.
There were no continuing cash flows from the operations in the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2011 and as such, there are no
amounts reclassified to discontinued operations for this period.
The following are the revenues related to discontinued
operations for the fiscal years ended December 28, 2008 and
January 3, 2010 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Revenues International Services
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,806
|
|
Revenues U.S. Detention & Corrections
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
210
|
|
|
$
|
43,784
|
|
Revenues GEO Care
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,806
|
|
|
|
6.
|
Property
and Equipment
|
Property and equipment consist of the following at fiscal year
end:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Useful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Life
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(Years)
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Land
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
97,393
|
|
|
$
|
60,331
|
|
Buildings and improvements
|
|
|
2 to 50
|
|
|
|
1,131,895
|
|
|
|
797,185
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
|
1 to 29
|
|
|
|
260,167
|
|
|
|
95,696
|
|
Equipment
|
|
|
3 to 10
|
|
|
|
77,906
|
|
|
|
63,382
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
|
3 to 7
|
|
|
|
18,453
|
|
|
|
11,731
|
|
Facility construction in progress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120,584
|
|
|
|
129,956
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,706,398
|
|
|
$
|
1,158,281
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(195,106
|
)
|
|
|
(159,721
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property and equipment, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,511,292
|
|
|
$
|
998,560
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company depreciates its leasehold improvements over the
shorter of their estimated useful lives or the terms of the
leases including renewal periods that are reasonably assured.
The Companys construction in progress primarily consists
of development costs associated with the Facility Construction
& Design segment for contracts with various federal, state
and local agencies for which we have management contracts.
Interest capitalized in property and equipment was
$4.1 million and $4.9 million for the fiscal years
ended January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010,
respectively.
109
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Depreciation expense was $41.4 million, $36.3 million
and $31.9 million for the fiscal years ended
January 2, 2011, January 3, 2010 and December 28,
2008, respectively.
At January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010, the Company
had $18.2 million and $18.2 million of assets recorded
under capital leases including $17.5 million related to
buildings and improvements, $0.7 million related to
equipment. Capital leases are recorded net of accumulated
amortization of $4.7 million and $3.9 million, at
January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010, respectively.
Depreciation expense related to capital leases for the fiscal
years ended January 2, 2011, January 3, 2010 and
December 28, 2008 was $0.8 million, $0.8 million
and $0.9 million, respectively and is included in
Depreciation and Amortization in the accompanying statements of
income.
The Company records its assets held for sale at the lower of
cost or estimated fair value. The Company estimates fair value
by using third party appraisers or other valuation techniques.
The Company does not record depreciation for its assets held for
sale.
As of January 2, 2011, the Companys assets held for
sale consisted of two assets:
On March 17, 2008, the Company purchased its former Coke
County Juvenile Justice Center (the Center) at a
cost of $3.1 million. In October 2008, the Company
established a formal plan to sell the asset and began active
discussions with certain parties interested in purchasing the
Center. The Company identified a buyer in 2010 and expects to
sell the facility in 2011; however, this sale is subject to the
buyer obtaining financing
and/or
government appropriation. If the buyer is unable to obtain the
funds necessary to purchase the Center, the Company will need to
locate another buyer. There can be no assurance that the
prospective buyer can obtain the financing, no assurance that
the Company will be able to locate another buyer in the event
that this buyer is not able to obtain the financing and no
assurance that the Center will be sold for its carrying value.
The Center is included in the segment assets of
U.S. Detention & Corrections and was recorded at its
net realizable value of $3.1 million at January 2,
2011 and at January 3, 2010.
On August 12, 2010, the Company acquired the Washington
D.C. Facility in connection with its purchase of Cornell. This
facility met the criteria as held for sale during the
Companys fiscal year ended January 2, 2011 and has
been designated as such. The carrying value of this asset as of
January 2, 2011 was $6.9 million. The Company believes
it has found a third party buyer and expects to close on the
sale in early 2011. The sale of this property, which is recorded
as an asset held for sale with GEO Care segment assets, will not
result in a gain or loss.
In conjunction with the acquisition of CSC in November 2005, the
Company acquired land associated with a program that had been
discontinued by CSC in October 2003. The land, with a
corresponding carrying value of $1.3 million, was sold in
October 2010 for $2.1 million, net of sales costs. The
Company recognized a gain on the sale of the land of
$0.8 million which is included in operating expenses in the
accompanying statement of income. The gain on the sale is
reported in the Companys U.S. Detention & Corrections
reportable segment.
|
|
8.
|
Investment
in Direct Finance Leases
|
The Companys investment in direct finance leases relates
to the financing and management of one Australian facility. The
Companys wholly-owned Australian subsidiary financed the
facilitys development with long-term debt obligations,
which are non-recourse to the Company.
110
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The future minimum rentals to be received are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
Repayment
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
8,548
|
|
2012
|
|
|
8,652
|
|
2013
|
|
|
8,792
|
|
2014
|
|
|
8,968
|
|
2015
|
|
|
9,560
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
12,544
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum obligation
|
|
$
|
57,064
|
|
Less unearned interest income
|
|
|
(14,724
|
)
|
Less current portion of direct finance lease
|
|
|
(4,796
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in direct finance lease
|
|
$
|
37,544
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
|
Derivative
Financial Instruments
|
In November 2009, the Company executed three interest rate swap
agreements (the Agreements) in the aggregate
notional amount of $75.0 million. In January 2010, the
Company executed a fourth interest rate swap agreement in the
notional amount of $25.0 million. The Company has
designated these interest rate swaps as hedges against changes
in the fair value of a designated portion of the
73/4% Senior
Notes due 2017
(73/4% Senior
Notes) due to changes in underlying interest rates. The
Agreements, which have payment, expiration dates and call
provisions that mirror the terms of the Notes, effectively
convert $100.0 million of the Notes into variable rate
obligations. Each of the swaps has a termination clause that
gives the counterparty the right to terminate the interest rate
swaps at fair market value, under certain circumstances. In
addition to the termination clause, the Agreements also have
call provisions which specify that the lender can elect to
settle the swap for the call option price. Under the Agreements,
the Company receives a fixed interest rate payment from the
financial counterparties to the agreements equal to
73/4%
per year calculated on the notional $100.0 million amount,
while it makes a variable interest rate payment to the same
counterparties equal to the three-month LIBOR plus a fixed
margin of between 4.16% and 4.29%, also calculated on the
notional $100.0 million amount. Changes in the fair value
of the interest rate swaps are recorded in earnings along with
related designated changes in the value of the Notes. Total net
gains (loss) recognized and recorded in earnings related to
these fair value hedges was $5.2 million and
$(1.9) million in the fiscal periods ended January 2,
2011 and January 3, 2010, respectively. As of
January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010, the fair value of
the swap assets (liabilities) was $3.3 million and
$(1.9) million, respectively. There was no material
ineffectiveness of these interest rate swaps during the fiscal
periods ended January 2, 2011.
The Companys Australian subsidiary is a party to an
interest rate swap agreement to fix the interest rate on the
variable rate non-recourse debt to 9.7%. The Company has
determined the swap, which has a notional amount of
$50.9 million, payment and expiration dates, and call
provisions that coincide with the terms of the non-recourse debt
to be an effective cash flow hedge. Accordingly, the Company
records the change in the value of the interest rate swap in
accumulated other comprehensive income, net of applicable income
taxes. Total net unrealized gain (loss) recognized in the
periods and recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income,
net of tax, related to these cash flow hedges was
$(0.1) million, $1.2 million and ($3.5) million
for the fiscal years ended January 2, 2011, January 3,
2010 and December 28, 2008, respectively. The total value
of the Australia swap asset as of January 2, 2011 and
January 3, 2010 was $1.8 million and
$2.0 million, respectively, and is recorded as a component
of other assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.
There was no material ineffectiveness of this interest rate swap
for the fiscal periods presented. The Company
111
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
does not expect to enter into any transactions during the next
twelve months which would result in the reclassification into
earnings or losses associated with this swap currently reported
in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss).
During the fiscal year ended January 3, 2010, the Company
received proceeds of $1.7 million for the settlement of an
aggregate notional amount of $50.0 million of interest rate
swaps related to its $150.0 million
81/4% Senior
Notes due 2013
(81/4% Senior
Notes). The lenders to these swap agreements elected to
prepay their obligations at the call option price which equaled
the fair value at the respective call dates.
|
|
10.
|
Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets, Net
|
Changes in the Companys goodwill balances for 2010 were as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase price
|
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
allocation
|
|
|
currency
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 3, 2010
|
|
|
Acquisitions
|
|
|
adjustment
|
|
|
translation
|
|
|
January 2, 2011
|
|
|
U.S. Detention & Corrections
|
|
$
|
21,692
|
|
|
$
|
153,882
|
|
|
$
|
1,126
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
176,700
|
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
17,729
|
|
|
|
50,500
|
|
|
|
(744
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67,485
|
|
International Services
|
|
|
669
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
|
762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Goodwill
|
|
$
|
40,090
|
|
|
$
|
204,382
|
|
|
$
|
382
|
|
|
$
|
93
|
|
|
$
|
244,947
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On August 12, 2010, the Company acquired Cornell and
recorded $204.7 million in goodwill representing the
strategic benefits of the Merger including the combined
Companys increased scale and the diversification of
service offerings. During the fiscal year ended January 2,
2011, the Company made adjustments to its purchase accounting in
the amount of $0.4 million, net, primarily related to
Cornell. Among other adjustments, this change in allocation
resulted from the Companys analyses primarily related to
certain receivables, intangible assets, insurance liabilities
and certain income and non-income tax items.
112
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Intangible assets consisted of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Useful Life
|
|
|
U.S. Detention &
|
|
|
International
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in Years
|
|
|
Corrections
|
|
|
Services
|
|
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Facility management contracts
|
|
|
1-17
|
|
|
$
|
14,450
|
|
|
$
|
2,468
|
|
|
$
|
6,600
|
|
|
$
|
23,518
|
|
Covenants not to compete
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
1,470
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,470
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross carrying value as of January 3, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,920
|
|
|
|
2,468
|
|
|
|
6,600
|
|
|
|
24,988
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes during fiscal year ended January 2, 2011 due to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility management contracts acquired
|
|
|
12-13
|
|
|
|
35,400
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,700
|
|
|
|
70,100
|
|
Covenants not to compete related to Cornell acquisition
|
|
|
1-2
|
|
|
|
2,879
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,821
|
|
|
|
5,700
|
|
Foreign currency translation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
286
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
286
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross carrying value at January 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,199
|
|
|
|
2,754
|
|
|
|
44,121
|
|
|
|
101,074
|
|
Accumulated amortization expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,146
|
)
|
|
|
(325
|
)
|
|
|
(2,790
|
)
|
|
|
(13,261
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net carrying value at January 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
44,053
|
|
|
$
|
2,429
|
|
|
$
|
41,331
|
|
|
$
|
87,813
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 2, 2011, the weighted average period before
the next contract renewal or extension for all of the
Companys the facility management contracts was
approximately 1.5 years. Although the facility management
contracts acquired have renewal and extension terms in the near
term, the Company has historically maintained these
relationships beyond the contractual periods.
Accumulated amortization expense in total and by asset class is
as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Detention &
|
|
|
International
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corrections
|
|
|
Services
|
|
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Facility management contracts
|
|
$
|
9,496
|
|
|
$
|
325
|
|
|
$
|
2,153
|
|
|
$
|
11,974
|
|
Covenants not to compete
|
|
|
650
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
637
|
|
|
|
1,287
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accumulated amortization expense
|
|
$
|
10,146
|
|
|
$
|
325
|
|
|
$
|
2,790
|
|
|
$
|
13,261
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization expense was $5.7 million, $2.0 million
and $1.8 million for the fiscal years ended January 2,
2011, January 3, 2010 and December 28, 2008,
respectively, and primarily related to the U.S. Detention
& Corrections amortization of intangible assets for
acquired management contracts.
113
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Estimated amortization expense related to the Companys
finite-lived intangible assets for fiscal year 2011 through
fiscal year 2015 and thereafter is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Detention &
|
|
|
International
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corrections -
|
|
|
Services -
|
|
|
GEO Care -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expense
|
|
|
Expense
|
|
|
Expense
|
|
|
Total Expense
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
5,783
|
|
|
$
|
151
|
|
|
$
|
4,984
|
|
|
$
|
10,918
|
|
2012
|
|
|
4,894
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
4,185
|
|
|
|
9,230
|
|
2013
|
|
|
3,556
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
3,236
|
|
|
|
6,943
|
|
2014
|
|
|
3,556
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
3,096
|
|
|
|
6,803
|
|
2015
|
|
|
3,556
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
3,065
|
|
|
|
6,772
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
22,708
|
|
|
|
1,674
|
|
|
|
22,765
|
|
|
|
47,147
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
44,053
|
|
|
$
|
2,429
|
|
|
$
|
41,331
|
|
|
$
|
87,813
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.
|
Fair
Value of Assets and Liabilities
|
The Company is required to measure certain of its financial
assets and liabilities at fair value on a recurring basis. The
Company does not have any financial assets and liabilities which
it carries and measures at fair value using Level 1
techniques, as defined above. The investments included in the
Companys Level 2 fair value measurements consist of
an interest rate swap held by the Companys Australian
subsidiary, an investment in Canadian dollar denominated fixed
income securities and a guaranteed investment contract which is
a restricted investment related to CSC of Tacoma LLC discussed
further in Note 14. The Company does not have any
Level 3 financial assets or liabilities it measures on a
recurring basis.
The following table provides a summary of the Companys
significant financial assets and liabilities carried at fair
value and measured on a recurring basis (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements at January 2, 2011
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
Quoted Prices in
|
|
Significant Other
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
Value at
|
|
Active Markets
|
|
Observable Inputs
|
|
Unobservable
|
|
|
January 2, 2011
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
Inputs (Level 3)
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swap derivative assets
|
|
$
|
5,131
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
5,131
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Investments other than derivatives
|
|
$
|
7,533
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
7,533
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements at January 3, 2010
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
Quoted Prices in
|
|
Significant Other
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
Value at
|
|
Active Markets
|
|
Observable Inputs
|
|
Unobservable
|
|
|
January 3, 2010
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
Inputs (Level 3)
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swap derivative assets
|
|
$
|
2,020
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,020
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Investments other than derivatives
|
|
$
|
7,269
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,269
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swap derivative liabilities
|
|
$
|
1,887
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,887
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
114
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
12.
|
Financial
Instruments
|
The Companys balance sheet reflects certain financial
instruments at carrying value. The following table presents the
carrying values of those instruments and the corresponding fair
values (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 2, 2011
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Value
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
39,664
|
|
|
$
|
39,664
|
|
Restricted cash and investments, including current portion
|
|
|
90,642
|
|
|
|
90,642
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowings under the Senior Credit Facility
|
|
$
|
557,758
|
|
|
$
|
562,610
|
|
73/4% Senior
Notes
|
|
|
250,078
|
|
|
|
265,000
|
|
Non-recourse debt, Australian subsidiary
|
|
|
46,300
|
|
|
|
46,178
|
|
Other non-recourse debt, including current portion
|
|
|
176,384
|
|
|
|
180,340
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 3, 2010
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Value
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
33,856
|
|
|
$
|
33,856
|
|
Cash, Restricted, including current portion
|
|
|
34,068
|
|
|
|
34,068
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowings under the Senior Credit Facility
|
|
$
|
212,963
|
|
|
$
|
203,769
|
|
73/4% Senior
Notes
|
|
|
250,000
|
|
|
|
255,000
|
|
Non-recourse debt, including current portion
|
|
|
113,724
|
|
|
|
113,360
|
|
The fair values of the Companys Cash and cash equivalents,
and Restricted cash and investments approximate the carrying
values of these assets at January 2, 2011 and
January 3, 2010 due to the short-term nature of these
instruments. The fair values of
73/4% Senior
Notes and Other non-recourse debt are based on market prices,
where available. The fair value of the non-recourse debt related
to the Companys Australian subsidiary is estimated using a
discounted cash flow model based on current Australian borrowing
rates for similar instruments. The fair value of the borrowings
under the Senior Credit Facility is based on an estimate of
trading value considering the companys borrowing rate, the
undrawn spread and similar market instruments.
Accrued expenses consisted of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Accrued interest
|
|
$
|
12,153
|
|
|
$
|
5,913
|
|
Accrued bonus
|
|
|
12,825
|
|
|
|
8,567
|
|
Accrued insurance
|
|
|
44,237
|
|
|
|
30,661
|
|
Accrued property and other taxes
|
|
|
15,723
|
|
|
|
5,219
|
|
Construction retainage
|
|
|
2,012
|
|
|
|
8,250
|
|
Other
|
|
|
34,697
|
|
|
|
22,149
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
121,647
|
|
|
$
|
80,759
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Debt consisted of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Capital Lease Obligations
|
|
$
|
14,470
|
|
|
$
|
15,124
|
|
Senior Credit Facility:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term loans
|
|
|
347,625
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount on term loan
|
|
|
(1,867
|
)
|
|
|
154,963
|
|
Revolver
|
|
|
212,000
|
|
|
|
58,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Senior Credit Facility
|
|
$
|
557,758
|
|
|
$
|
212,963
|
|
73/4% Senior
Notes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes Due in 2017
|
|
|
250,000
|
|
|
|
250,000
|
|
Discount on Notes
|
|
|
(3,227
|
)
|
|
|
(3,566
|
)
|
Swap on Notes
|
|
|
3,305
|
|
|
|
(1,887
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
73/4% Senior
Notes
|
|
$
|
250,078
|
|
|
$
|
244,547
|
|
Non-Recourse Debt :
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-recourse debt
|
|
$
|
212,445
|
|
|
$
|
113,724
|
|
Premium on non-recourse debt
|
|
|
11,403
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount on non-recourse debt
|
|
|
(1,164
|
)
|
|
|
(1,692
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non recourse debt
|
|
|
222,684
|
|
|
|
112,032
|
|
Other debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt
|
|
$
|
1,044,990
|
|
|
$
|
584,694
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of capital lease obligations, long-term debt and
non-recourse debt
|
|
|
(41,574
|
)
|
|
|
(19,624
|
)
|
Capital lease obligations, long-term portion
|
|
|
(13,686
|
)
|
|
|
(14,419
|
)
|
Non-recourse debt
|
|
|
(191,394
|
)
|
|
|
(96,791
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
$
|
798,336
|
|
|
$
|
453,860
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior
Credit Facility
On August 4, 2010, the Company executed a new
$750.0 million senior credit facility (the Senior
Credit Facility), through the execution of a Credit
Agreement, by and among GEO, as Borrower, BNP Paribas, as
Administrative Agent, and the lenders who are, or may from time
to time become, a party thereto. The Senior Credit Facility is
comprised of (i) a $150.0 million Term Loan A
(Term Loan A), initially bearing interest at LIBOR
plus 2.5% and maturing August 4, 2015, (ii) a
$200.0 million Term Loan B (Term Loan B)
initially bearing interest at LIBOR plus 3.25% with a LIBOR
floor of 1.50% and maturing August 4, 2016 and (iii) a
Revolving Credit Facility (Revolver) of
$400.0 million initially bearing interest at LIBOR plus
2.5% and maturing August 4, 2015.
116
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Indebtedness under the Revolver and the Term Loan A bears
interest based on the Total Leverage Ratio as of the most recent
determination date, as defined, in each of the instances below
at the stated rate:
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Rate under the Revolver and Term Loan A
|
|
LIBOR borrowings
|
|
LIBOR plus 2.00% to 3.00%.
|
Base rate borrowings
|
|
Prime Rate plus 1.00% to 2.00%.
|
Letters of credit
|
|
2.00% to 3.00%.
|
Unused Revolver
|
|
0.375% to 0.50%.
|
The Senior Credit Facility contains certain customary
representations and warranties, and certain customary covenants
that restrict the Companys ability to, among other things
as permitted (i) create, incur or assume indebtedness,
(ii) create, incur, assume or permit liens, (iii) make
loans and investments, (iv) engage in mergers, acquisitions
and asset sales, (v) make restricted payments,
(vi) issue, sell or otherwise dispose of capital stock,
(vii) engage in transactions with affiliates,
(viii) allow the total leverage ratio or senior secured
leverage ratio to exceed certain maximum ratios or allow the
interest coverage ratio to be less than 3.00 to 1.00,
(ix) cancel, forgive, make any voluntary or optional
payment or prepayment on, or redeem or acquire for value any
senior notes, (x) alter the business the Company conducts,
and (xi) materially impair the Companys lenders
security interests in the collateral for its loans.
The Company must not exceed the following Total Leverage Ratios,
as computed at the end of each fiscal quarter for the
immediately preceding four quarter-period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Leverage Ratio -
|
|
Period
|
|
Maximum Ratio
|
|
|
August 4, 2010 through and including the last day of the
fiscal year 2011
|
|
|
4.50 to 1.00
|
|
First day of fiscal year 2012 through and including that last
day of fiscal year 2012
|
|
|
4.25 to 1.00
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
4.00 to 1.00
|
|
The Senior Credit Facility also does not permit the Company to
exceed the following Senior Secured Leverage Ratios, as computed
at the end of each fiscal quarter for the immediately preceding
four quarter-period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Secured Leverage Ratio -
|
|
Period
|
|
Maximum Ratio
|
|
|
August 4, 2010 through and including the last day of the
fiscal year 2011
|
|
|
3.25 to 1.00
|
|
First day of fiscal year 2012 through and including that last
day of fiscal year 2012
|
|
|
3.00 to 1.00
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
2.75 to 1.00
|
|
Additionally, there is an Interest Coverage Ratio under which
the lender will not permit a ratio of less than 3.00 to 1.00
relative to (a) Adjusted EBITDA for any period of four
consecutive fiscal quarters to (b) Interest Expense, less
that attributable to non-recourse debt of unrestricted
subsidiaries.
Events of default under the Senior Credit Facility include, but
are not limited to, (i) the Companys failure to pay
principal or interest when due, (ii) the Companys
material breach of any representations or warranty,
(iii) covenant defaults, (iv) liquidation,
reorganization or other relief relating to bankruptcy or
insolvency, (v) cross default under certain other material
indebtedness, (vi) unsatisfied final judgments over a
specified threshold, (vii) material environmental liability
claims which have been asserted against the Company, and
(viii) a change in control. All of the obligations under
the Senior Credit Facility are unconditionally guaranteed by
certain of the Companys subsidiaries and secured by
substantially all of the Companys present and future
tangible and intangible assets and all present and future
tangible and intangible
117
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
assets of each guarantor, including but not limited to
(i) a first-priority pledge of substantially all of the
outstanding capital stock owned by the Company and each
guarantor, and (ii) perfected first-priority security
interests in substantially all of the Companys, and each
guarantors, present and future tangible and intangible assets
and the present and future tangible and intangible assets of
each guarantor. The Companys failure to comply with any of
the covenants under its Senior Credit Facility could cause an
event of default under such documents and result in an
acceleration of all of outstanding senior secured indebtedness.
The Company believes it was in compliance with all of the
covenants of the Senior Credit Facility as of January 2,
2011.
On August 4, 2010 in connection with its entry into the
$750.0 million Senior Credit Facility, the Company
terminated its prior senior credit facility, the Third Amended
and Restated Credit Agreement (the Prior Senior Credit
Agreement), dated as of January 24, 2007, as amended.
The Prior Senior Credit Agreement, as of August 4, 2010,
consisted of a $152.2 million term loan B (Prior Term
Loan B) and a $330.0 million revolver (Prior
Revolver) with outstanding borrowings on August 4,
2010 of $115.0 million. The Prior Term Loan B bore interest
at LIBOR plus 2.00% and the Prior Revolver bore interest at
LIBOR plus 3.25% at the time of terminating the Prior Senior
Credit Agreement. The Prior Term Loan B component was scheduled
to mature in January 2014 and the Prior Revolver component was
scheduled to mature in September 2012. The weighed average
interest rate on outstanding borrowings under the Senior Credit
Facility, as amended, as of January 2, 2011 was 3.5%. The
weighed average interest rate on outstanding borrowings under
the, Prior Senior Credit Agreement as of January 3, 2010 was
2.62%.
On August 4, 2010, the Company used approximately
$280 million in aggregate proceeds from the Term Loan B and
the Revolver primarily to repay existing borrowings and accrued
interest under its Prior Senior Credit Agreement of
$267.7 million and also used $6.7 million for
financing fees related to the Senior Credit Facility. The
Company received, as cash, the remaining proceeds of
$3.2 million. On August 12, 2010, the Company borrowed
$290.0 million under its Senior Credit Facility and used
the aggregate cash proceeds primarily for $84.9 million in
cash consideration payments to Cornells stockholders in
connection with the Merger, transaction costs of approximately
$14.0 million, the repayment of $181.9 million for
Cornells 10.75% Senior Notes due July 2012 plus
accrued interest and Cornells Revolving Line of Credit due
December 2011 plus accrued interest. As of January 2, 2011,
the Company had $148.1 million outstanding under the Term
Loan A, $199.5 million outstanding under the Term Loan B,
and its $400.0 million Revolver had $212.0 million
outstanding in loans, $57.0 million outstanding in letters
of credit and $131.0 million available for borrowings. The
Company intends to use future borrowings for the purposes
permitted under the Senior Credit Facility, including for
general corporate purposes. The Company wrote off
$7.9 million in deferred financing costs related to the
termination of the Prior Senior Credit Agreement.
73/4% Senior
Notes
On October 20, 2009, the Company completed a private
offering of $250.0 million in aggregate principal amount of
its
73/4% Senior
Notes due 2017. These senior unsecured notes pay interest
semi-annually in cash in arrears on April 15 and October 15 of
each year, beginning on April 15, 2010. The Company
realized net proceeds of $246.4 million at the close of the
transaction, net of the discount on the notes of
$3.6 million. The Company used the net proceeds of the
offering to fund the repurchase of all of its
81/4% Senior
Notes due 2013 and pay down part of the Revolving Credit
Facility under our Prior Senior Credit Agreement.
The
73/4% Senior
Notes and the guarantees will be unsecured, unsubordinated
obligations of The GEO Group Inc., and the guarantors and will
rank as follows: pari passu with any unsecured, unsubordinated
indebtedness of GEO and the guarantors; senior to any future
indebtedness of GEO and the guarantors that is expressly
subordinated to the notes and the guarantees; effectively junior
to any secured indebtedness of GEO and the guarantors, including
indebtedness under the Companys Senior Credit Facility, to
the extent of the value of the assets securing such
indebtedness; and effectively junior to all obligations of the
Companys subsidiaries that are not guarantors. After
October 15, 2013, the Company may, at its option, redeem
all or a part of the
73/4% Senior
Notes upon not less than 30 nor more than 60 days
notice, at the redemption prices
118
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(expressed as percentages of principal amount) set forth below,
plus accrued and unpaid interest and liquidated damages, if any,
on the
73/4% Senior
Notes redeemed, to the applicable redemption date, if redeemed
during the
12-month
period beginning on October 15 of the years indicated below:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
103.875
|
%
|
2014
|
|
|
101.938
|
%
|
2015 and thereafter
|
|
|
100.000
|
%
|
Before October 15, 2013, the Company may redeem some or all
of the
73/4% Senior
Notes at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal
amount of each note to be redeemed plus a make-whole premium
described under Description of Notes Optional
Redemption together with accrued and unpaid interest. In
addition, at any time prior to October 15, 2012, the
Company may redeem up to 35% of the notes with the net cash
proceeds from specified equity offerings at a redemption price
equal to 107.750% of the principal amount of each note to be
redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the date
of redemption.
The indenture governing the notes contains certain covenants,
including limitations and restrictions on the Companys and
its restricted subsidiaries ability to: incur additional
indebtedness or issue preferred stock; make dividend payments or
other restricted payments; create liens; sell assets; enter into
transactions with affiliates; and enter into mergers,
consolidations, or sales of all or substantially all of the
Companys assets. As of the date of the indenture, all of
the Companys subsidiaries, other than certain dormant
domestic subsidiaries and all foreign subsidiaries in existence
on the date of the indenture, were restricted subsidiaries. The
Companys unrestricted subsidiaries will not be subject to
any of the restrictive covenants in the indenture. The
Companys failure to comply with certain of the covenants
under the indenture governing the
73/4% Notes
could cause an event of default of any indebtedness and result
in an acceleration of such indebtedness. In addition, there is a
cross-default provision which becomes enforceable upon failure
of payment of indebtedness at final maturity. The Company
believes it was in compliance with all of the covenants of the
Indenture governing the
73/4% Senior
Notes as of January 2, 2011.
Non-Recourse
Debt
South
Texas Detention Complex:
The Company has a debt service requirement related to the
development of the South Texas Detention Complex, a 1,904-bed
detention complex in Frio County, Texas, acquired in November
2005 from Correctional Services Corporation (CSC).
CSC was awarded the contract in February 2004 by the Department
of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) for development and operation of
the detention center. In order to finance its construction of
the complex, STLDC was created and issued $49.5 million in
taxable revenue bonds. These bonds mature in February 2016 and
have fixed coupon rates between 4.34% and 5.07%. Additionally,
the Company is owed $5.0 million of subordinated notes by
STLDC which represents the principal amount of financing
provided to STLDC by CSC for initial development.
The Company has an operating agreement with STLDC, the owner of
the complex, which provides it with the sole and exclusive right
to operate and manage the detention center. The operating
agreement and bond indenture require the revenue from the
contract with ICE be used to fund the periodic debt service
requirements as they become due. The net revenues, if any, after
various expenses such as trustee fees, property taxes and
insurance premiums are distributed to the Company to cover
operating expenses and management fees. The Company is
responsible for the entire operation of the facility including
the payment of all operating expenses whether or not there are
sufficient revenues. STLDC has no liabilities resulting from its
ownership. The bonds have a ten-year term and are non-recourse
to the Company and STLDC. The bonds are fully insured and the
sole source of payment for the bonds is the operating revenues
of the center. At the end of the ten-year term of the bonds,
title and ownership of the facility transfers from STLDC to the
Company. The Company has determined that it is the primary
beneficiary of STLDC and consolidates the entity as a
119
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
result. The carrying value of the facility as of January 2,
2011 and January 3, 2010 was $27.0 million and
$27.2 million, respectively, and is included in property
and equipment in the accompanying balance sheets.
On February 1, 2010, STLDC made a payment from its
restricted cash account of $4.6 million for the current
portion of its periodic debt service requirement in relation to
the STLDC operating agreement and bond indenture. As of
January 2, 2011, the remaining balance of the debt service
requirement under the STLDC financing agreement is
$32.1 million, of which $4.8 million is due within the
next twelve months. Also, as of January 2, 2011, included
in current restricted cash and non-current restricted cash is
$6.2 million and $9.3 million, respectively, of funds
held in trust with respect to the STLDC for debt service and
other reserves.
Northwest
Detention Center
On June 30, 2003, CSC arranged financing for the
construction of the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma,
Washington, referred to as the Northwest Detention Center, which
was completed and opened for operation in April 2004. The
Company began to operate this facility following its acquisition
in November 2005. In connection with the original financing, CSC
of Tacoma LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of CSC, issued a
$57.0 million note payable to the Washington Economic
Development Finance Authority (WEDFA), an
instrumentality of the State of Washington, which issued revenue
bonds and subsequently loaned the proceeds of the bond issuance
back to CSC for the purposes of constructing the Northwest
Detention Center. The bonds are non-recourse to the Company and
the loan from WEDFA to CSC is non-recourse to the Company. These
bonds mature in February 2014 and have fixed coupon rates
between 3.80% and 4.10%.
The proceeds of the loan were disbursed into escrow accounts
held in trust to be used to pay the issuance costs for the
revenue bonds, to construct the Northwest Detention Center and
to establish debt service and other reserves. On October 1,
2010, CSC of Tacoma LLC made a payment from its restricted cash
account of $5.9 million for the current portion of its
periodic debt service requirement in relation to the WEDFA bond
indenture. As of January 2, 2011, the remaining balance of
the debt service requirement is $25.7 million, of which
$6.1 million is classified as current in the accompanying
balance sheet.
As of January 2, 2011, included in current restricted cash
and non-current restricted cash is $7.1 million and
$1.8 million, respectively, of funds held in trust with
respect to the Northwest Detention Center for debt service and
other reserves.
MCF
Upon completion of the acquisition of Cornell, the obligations
of MCF under its 8.47% Revenue Bonds remained outstanding. These
bonds bear interest at a rate of 8.47% per annum and are payable
in semi-annual installments of interest and annual installments
of principal. All unpaid principal and accrued interest on the
bonds is due on the earlier of August 1, 2016 (maturity) or
as noted under the bond documents. The bonds are limited,
nonrecourse obligations of MCF and are collateralized by the
property and equipment, bond reserves, assignment of subleases
and substantially all assets related to the facilities owned by
MCF. The bonds are not guaranteed by the Company or its
subsidiaries.
The 8.47% Revenue Bond indenture provides for the establishment
and maintenance by MCF for the benefit of the trustee under the
indenture of a debt service reserve fund. As of January 2,
2011, the debt service reserve fund has a balance of
$23.4 million. The debt service reserve fund is available
to the trustee to pay debt service on the 8.47% Revenue Bonds
when needed, and to pay final debt service on the 8.47% Revenue
Bonds. If MCF is in default in its obligation under the 8.47%
Revenue Bonds indenture, the trustee may declare the principal
outstanding and accrued interest immediately due and payable.
MCF has the right to cure a default of non-payment obligations.
The 8.47% Revenue Bonds are subject to extraordinary mandatory
redemption in certain instances upon casualty or condemnation.
The 8.47% Revenue Bonds may be redeemed at the option of MCF
prior to their final scheduled payment dates at par plus accrued
interest plus a make-whole premium.
120
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Australia
The Companys wholly-owned Australian subsidiary financed
the development of a facility and subsequent expansion in 2003
with long-term debt obligations. These obligations are
non-recourse to the Company and total $46.3 million and
$45.4 million at January 2, 2011 and January 3,
2010, respectively. The term of the non-recourse debt is through
2017 and it bears interest at a variable rate quoted by certain
Australian banks plus 140 basis points. Any obligations or
liabilities of the subsidiary are matched by a similar or
corresponding commitment from the government of the State of
Victoria. As a condition of the loan, the Company is required to
maintain a restricted cash balance of AUD 5.0 million,
which, at January 2, 2011, was $5.1 million. This
amount is included in non-current restricted cash and the annual
maturities of the future debt obligation are included in
non-recourse debt.
Debt
Repayment
Debt repayment schedules under capital lease obligations,
long-term debt and non-recourse debt are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Long-Term
|
|
|
Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term
|
|
|
Total Annual
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
Debt
|
|
|
Recourse
|
|
|
Revolver
|
|
|
Loan
|
|
|
Repayment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
1,950
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
31,290
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
9,500
|
|
|
$
|
42,740
|
|
2012
|
|
|
1,950
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,281
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,375
|
|
|
|
46,606
|
|
2013
|
|
|
1,950
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,616
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,750
|
|
|
|
58,316
|
|
2014
|
|
|
1,940
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,000
|
|
|
|
86,942
|
|
2015
|
|
|
1,932
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,878
|
|
|
|
212,000
|
|
|
|
116,500
|
|
|
|
364,310
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
12,842
|
|
|
|
250,000
|
|
|
|
40,378
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142,500
|
|
|
|
445,720
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
22,564
|
|
|
$
|
250,000
|
|
|
$
|
212,445
|
|
|
$
|
212,000
|
|
|
$
|
347,625
|
|
|
$
|
1,044,634
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original issuers discount
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,227
|
)
|
|
|
(1,164
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,867
|
)
|
|
|
(6,258
|
)
|
Current portion
|
|
|
(784
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31,290
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,500
|
)
|
|
|
(41,574
|
)
|
Interest imputed on Capital Leases
|
|
|
(8,094
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,094
|
)
|
Fair value premium on non-recourse debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,403
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,403
|
|
Interest rate swap
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,305
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,305
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-current portion
|
|
$
|
13,686
|
|
|
$
|
250,078
|
|
|
$
|
191,394
|
|
|
$
|
212,000
|
|
|
$
|
336,258
|
|
|
$
|
1,003,416
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantees
In connection with the creation SACS, the Company entered into
certain guarantees related to the financing, construction and
operation of the prison. The Company guaranteed certain
obligations of SACS under its debt agreements up to a maximum
amount of 60.0 million South African Rand, or
$9.1 million, to SACS senior lenders through the
issuance of letters of credit. Additionally, SACS is required to
fund a restricted account for the payment of certain costs in
the event of contract termination. The Company has guaranteed
the payment of 60% of amounts which may be payable by SACS into
the restricted account and provided a standby letter of credit
of 8.4 million South African Rand, or $1.3 million, as
security for its guarantee. The Companys obligations under
this guarantee are indexed to the CPI and expire upon SACS
release from its obligations in respect of the restricted
account under its debt agreements. No amounts have been drawn
against these letters of credit, which are included in the
Companys outstanding letters of credit under its Revolver.
121
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Company has agreed to provide a loan, of up to
20.0 million South African Rand, or $3.0 million (the
Standby Facility), to SACS for the purpose of
financing SACS obligations under its contract with the
South African government. No amounts have been funded under the
Standby Facility, and the Company does not currently anticipate
that such funding will be required by SACS in the future. The
Companys obligations under the Standby Facility expire
upon the earlier of full funding or SACS release from its
obligations under its debt agreements. The lenders ability
to draw on the Standby Facility is limited to certain
circumstances, including termination of the contract.
The Company has also guaranteed certain obligations of SACS to
the security trustee for SACS lenders. The Company secured
its guarantee to the security trustee by ceding its rights to
claims against SACS in respect of any loans or other finance
agreements, and by pledging the Companys shares in SACS.
The Companys liability under the guarantee is limited to
the cession and pledge of shares. The guarantee expires upon
expiration of the cession and pledge agreements.
In connection with a design, build, finance and maintenance
contract for a facility in Canada, the Company guaranteed
certain potential tax obligations of a
not-for-profit
entity. The potential estimated exposure of these obligations is
Canadian Dollar (CAD) 2.5 million, or
$2.5 million, commencing in 2017. The Company has a
liability of $1.8 million and $1.5 million related to
this exposure as of January 2, 2011 and January 3,
2010, respectively. To secure this guarantee, the Company
purchased Canadian dollar denominated securities with maturities
matched to the estimated tax obligations in 2017 to 2021. The
Company has recorded an asset and a liability equal to the
current fair market value of those securities on its
consolidated balance sheet. The Company does not currently
operate or manage this facility.
At January 2, 2011, the Company also had seven letters of
guarantee outstanding under separate international facilities
relating to performance guarantees of its Australian subsidiary
totaling $9.4 million. The Company does not have any off
balance sheet arrangements.
|
|
15.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Operating
Leases
The Company leases correctional facilities, office space,
computers and transportation equipment under non-cancelable
operating leases expiring between 2011 and 2046. The future
minimum commitments under these leases are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
Annual Rental
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
30,948
|
|
2012
|
|
|
29,774
|
|
2013
|
|
|
25,019
|
|
2014
|
|
|
17,798
|
|
2015
|
|
|
16,416
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
61,226
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
181,181
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys corporate offices are located in Boca Raton,
Florida, under a lease agreement which was amended in September
2010. The current lease expires in March 2020 and has two
5-year
renewal options for a full term ending March 2030. In addition,
the Company leases office space for its regional offices in
Charlotte, North Carolina; San Antonio, Texas; and Los
Angeles, California. As a result of the Companys
acquisition of Cornell in August 2010, the Company is also
currently leasing office space in Houston, Texas and Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania. The Company also leases office space in Sydney,
Australia, Sandton, South
122
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Africa, and Berkshire, England through its overseas affiliates
to support its Australian, South African, and UK operations,
respectively. These rental commitments are included in the table
above. Certain of these leases contain leasehold improvement
incentives, rent holidays, and scheduled rent increases which
are included in the Companys rent expense recognized on a
straight-line basis. Minimum rent expense associated with the
Companys leases having initial or remaining non-cancelable
lease terms in excess of one year was $25.4 million,
$18.7 million and $18.5 million for fiscal years 2010,
2009 and 2008, respectively.
Litigation,
Claims and Assessments
In June 2004, the Company received notice of a third-party claim
for property damage incurred during 2001 and 2002 at several
detention facilities formerly operated by its Australian
subsidiary. The claim relates to property damage caused by
detainees at the detention facilities. The notice was given by
the Australian governments insurance provider and did not
specify the amount of damages being sought. In August 2007, a
lawsuit (Commonwealth of Australia v. Australasian
Connectional Services PTY, Limited No. SC 656) was
filed against the Company in the Supreme Court of the Australian
Capital Territory seeking damages of up to approximately AUD
18 million, as of January 2, 2011, or $18.4 million,
plus interest. The Company believes that it has several defenses
to the allegations underlying the litigation and the amounts
sought and intends to vigorously defend its rights with respect
to this matter. The Company has established a reserve based on
its estimate of the most probable loss based on the facts and
circumstances known to date and the advice of legal counsel in
connection with this matter. Although the outcome of this matter
cannot be predicted with certainty, based on information known
to date and the Companys preliminary review of the claim
and related reserve for loss, the Company believes that, if
settled unfavorably, this matter could have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows. The Company is uninsured for any damages or costs that it
may incur as a result of this claim, including the expenses of
defending the claim.
During the fourth fiscal quarter of 2009, the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) completed its examination of the
Companys U.S. federal income tax returns for the
years 2002 through 2005. Following the examination, the IRS
notified the Companys management that it proposed to
disallow a deduction that the Company realized during the 2005
tax year. In December of 2010, the Company reached an agreement
with the office of IRS Appeals on the amount of the deduction,
which is currently being reviewed at a higher level. As a result
of the pending agreement, the Company reassessed the probability
of potential settlement outcomes and reduced its income tax
accrual of $4.9 million by $2.3 million during the
fourth quarter of 2010. However, if the disallowed deduction
were to be sustained in full, it could result in a potential tax
exposure to the Company of $15.4 million. The Company
believes in the merits of its position and intends to defend its
rights vigorously, including its rights to litigate the matter
if it cannot be resolved favorably with the office of IRS
Appeals. If this matter is resolved unfavorably, it may have a
material adverse effect on the Companys financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.
In October 2010, the IRS audit for the Companys
U.S. income tax returns for fiscal years 2006 through 2008
was concluded and resulted in no changes to the Companys
income tax positions.
The Companys South Africa joint venture had been in
discussions with the South African Revenue Service
(SARS) with respect to the deductibility of certain
expenses for the tax periods 2002 through 2004. The joint
venture operates the Kutama Sinthumule Correctional Centre and
accepted inmates from the South African Department of
Correctional Services in 2002. During 2009, SARS notified the
Company that it proposed to disallow these deductions. The
Company appealed these proposed disallowed deductions with SARS
and in October 2010, received a notice of favorable ruling
relative to these proceedings. If SARS should appeal, the
Company believes it has defenses in these matters and intends to
defend its rights vigorously. If resolved unfavorably, the
Companys maximum exposure would be $2.6 million.
On April 27, 2010, a putative stockholder class action was
filed in the District Court for Harris County, Texas by Todd
Shelby against Cornell, members of Cornells board of
directors, individually, and the
123
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Company. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
May 28, 2010, alleging, among other things, that the
Cornell directors, aided and abetted by Cornell and the Company,
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Cornell
Acquisition. Among other things, the amended complaint sought to
enjoin Cornell, its directors and the Company from completing
the Cornell Acquisition and sought a constructive trust over any
benefits improperly received by the defendants as a result of
their alleged wrongful conduct. The parties reached a settlement
which has been approved by the court and, as a result, the court
dismissed the action with prejudice. The settlement of this
matter did not have a material adverse impact on our financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.
The nature of the Companys business exposes it to various
types of claims or litigation against the Company, including,
but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to conditions
of confinement
and/or
mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or
detainees, medical malpractice claims, claims relating to
employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment
discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour
claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile
liability claims, indemnification claims by its customers and
other third parties, contractual claims and claims for personal
injury or other damages resulting from contact with the
Companys facilities, programs, personnel or prisoners,
including damages arising from a prisoners escape or from
a disturbance or riot at a facility. Except as otherwise
disclosed above, the Company does not expect the outcome of any
pending claims or legal proceedings to have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.
Collective
Bargaining Agreements
The Company had approximately 17% of its workforce covered by
collective bargaining agreements at January 2, 2011.
Collective bargaining agreements with four percent of employees
are set to expire in less than one year.
Contract
Terminations
The following contracts were terminated during the fiscal year
ended January 2, 2011. The Company does not expect that the
termination of these contracts will have a material adverse
impact, individually or in aggregate, on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.
On April 4, 2010, the Companys wholly-owned
Australian subsidiary completed the transition of its management
of the Melbourne Custody Center (the Center) to
another service provider. The Center was operated on behalf of
the Victoria Police to house prisoners, escort and guard
prisoners for the Melbourne Magistrate Courts and to provide
primary healthcare.
On April 14, 2010, the Company announced the results of the
re-bids of two of its managed-only contracts. The State of
Florida has issued a Notice of Intent to Award contracts for the
1,884-bed Graceville Correctional Facility located in
Graceville, Florida and the 985-bed Moore Haven Correctional
Facility located in Moore Haven, Florida to another operator.
These contracts terminated effective September 26, 2010 and
August 1, 2010, respectively.
On June 22, 2010, the Company announced the discontinuation
of its managed-only contract for the 520-bed Bridgeport
Correctional Center in Texas following a competitive re-bid
process conducted by the State of Texas. The contract was
terminated effective August 31, 2010.
Effective September 1, 2010, the Companys management
contract for the operation of the 450-bed South Texas
Intermediate Sanction Facility terminated. This facility was not
owned by the Company.
Effective May 29, 2011, the Companys subsidiary in
the United Kingdom will no longer manage the 215-bed Campsfield
House Immigration Removal Centre in Kidlington, England.
124
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Commitments
The Company is currently developing a number of projects using
company financing. The Companys management estimates that
these existing capital projects will cost approximately
$282.4 million, of which $54.9 million was spent
through the end of 2010. The Company estimates the remaining
capital requirements related to these capital projects to be
approximately $227.5 million, which will be spent through
fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Capital expenditures related to
facility maintenance costs are expected to range between
$20.0 million and $25.0 million for fiscal year 2010.
In addition to these current estimated capital requirements for
2011 and 2010, the Company is currently in the process of
bidding on, or evaluating potential bids for the design,
construction and management of a number of new projects. In the
event that the Company wins bids for these projects and decides
to self-finance their construction, its capital requirements in
2011 could materially increase.
Consulting
agreement with Wayne H. Calabrese
Wayne H. Calabrese, the Companys former Vice Chairman,
President and Chief Operating Officer retired effective
December 31, 2010. Mr. Calabreses business
development and oversight responsibilities were reassigned
throughout the Companys senior management team and
existing corporate structure. Mr. Calabrese will continue
to work with the Company in a consulting capacity pursuant to a
consulting agreement, dated as of August 26, 2010 for a
minimum term of one year. Under the terms of the Consulting
Agreement, which began on January 3, 2011,
Mr. Calabrese provides services to the Company and its
subsidiaries for a monthly consulting fee. Services provided
include business development and contract administration
assistance relative to new and existing contracts.
Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing the income from
continuing operations attributable to The GEO Group Inc.,
shareholders by the weighted average number of outstanding
shares of common stock. The calculation of diluted earnings per
share is similar to that of basic earnings per share, except
that the denominator includes dilutive common stock equivalents
such as stock options and shares of restricted stock.
125
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Basic and diluted earnings per share (EPS) were
calculated for the fiscal years ended January 2, 2011,
January 3, 2010 and December 28, 2008 as follows (in
thousands, except per share data):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
62,790
|
|
|
$
|
66,469
|
|
|
$
|
61,829
|
|
Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
678
|
|
|
|
(169
|
)
|
|
|
(376
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations attributable to The GEO Group,
Inc.
|
|
$
|
63,468
|
|
|
$
|
66,300
|
|
|
$
|
61,453
|
|
Basic earnings per share from continuing operations attributable
to The GEO Group, Inc.:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
55,379
|
|
|
|
50,879
|
|
|
|
50,539
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per share amount
|
|
$
|
1.15
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
$
|
1.22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations
attributable to The GEO Group, Inc.:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
55,379
|
|
|
|
50,879
|
|
|
|
50,539
|
|
Effect of dilutive securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee and director stock options and restricted stock
|
|
|
610
|
|
|
|
1,043
|
|
|
|
1,291
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares assuming dilution
|
|
|
55,989
|
|
|
|
51,922
|
|
|
|
51,830
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per share amount
|
|
$
|
1.13
|
|
|
$
|
1.28
|
|
|
$
|
1.19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011, 25,570 weighted
average shares of stock underlying options were excluded from
the computation of diluted EPS because the effect would be
anti-dilutive. No shares of restricted stock were anti-dilutive.
For the fiscal year ended January 3, 2010, 69,492 weighted
average shares of stock underlying options and 107 weighted
average shares of restricted stock were excluded from the
computation of diluted EPS because the effect would be
anti-dilutive.
For the fiscal year December 28, 2008, 372,725 weighted
average shares of stock underlying options and 8,986 weighted
average shares of restricted stock were excluded from the
computation of diluted EPS because the effect would be
anti-dilutive.
The Company has two non-contributory defined benefit pension
plans covering certain of the Companys executives.
Retirement benefits are based on years of service,
employees average compensation for the last five years
prior to retirement and social security benefits. Currently, the
plans are not funded. The Company purchased and is the
beneficiary of life insurance policies for certain participants
enrolled in the plans.
As of January 2, 2011, the Company had a non-qualified
deferred compensation agreement with its Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) which was modified in 2002, and again in 2003.
The current agreement provides for a lump sum payment upon
retirement, no sooner than age 55. As of January 2,
2011, the CEO had reached age 55 and was eligible to
receive the payment upon retirement. Prior to the effective
retirement date of December 31, 2010, Wayne H. Calabrese,
the Companys former Vice Chairman, President and Chief
Operating Officer, also had a deferred compensation agreement
under the non-qualified deferred compensation plan. As a result
of his retirement, the Company paid $4.4 million in
discounted retirement benefits under his non-qualified deferred
compensation agreement, including a gross up of
$1.6 million for certain taxes as specified in the deferred
compensation agreement. As a result of Mr. Calabreses
retirement, the Company
126
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
recognized $0.3 million in settlement charges. During the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2011, the Company repurchased
358,126 shares from Mr. Calabrese under the stock
repurchase program for $7.5 million. The Company also
purchased 268,475 shares from Mr. Calabrese for
$6.1 million which were retired by the Company immediately
upon repurchase.
The following table summarizes key information related to the
Companys pension plans and retirement agreements. The
table illustrates the reconciliation of the beginning and ending
balances of the benefit obligation showing the effects during
the periods presented attributable to each of the following:
service cost, interest cost, plan amendments, termination
benefits, actuarial gains and losses. The Companys
liability relative to its pension plans and retirement
agreements was $13.8 million and $16.2 million as of
January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010, respectively. The
long-term portion of the pension liability as of January 2,
2011 and January 3, 2010 was $13.6 million and
$16.0 million, respectively, and is included in Other
Non-Current liabilities in the accompanying balance sheets. The
assumptions used in the Companys calculation of accrued
pension costs are based on market information and the
Companys historical rates for employment compensation and
discount rates, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected Benefit Obligation, Beginning of Year
|
|
$
|
16,206
|
|
|
$
|
19,320
|
|
Service Cost
|
|
|
525
|
|
|
|
563
|
|
Interest Cost
|
|
|
746
|
|
|
|
717
|
|
Plan Amendments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actuarial (Gain) Loss
|
|
|
986
|
|
|
|
(1,047
|
)
|
Benefits Paid
|
|
|
(4,633
|
)
|
|
|
(3,347
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected Benefit Obligation, End of Year
|
|
$
|
13,830
|
|
|
$
|
16,206
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in Plan Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan Assets at Fair Value, Beginning of Year
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Company Contributions
|
|
|
4,633
|
|
|
|
3,347
|
|
Benefits Paid
|
|
|
(4,633
|
)
|
|
|
(3,347
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan Assets at Fair Value, End of Year
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfunded Status of the Plan
|
|
$
|
(13,830
|
)
|
|
$
|
(16,206
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts Recognized in Accumulated Other Comprehensive
Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior Service Cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
Net Loss
|
|
|
1,671
|
|
|
|
1,014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Pension Cost
|
|
$
|
1,671
|
|
|
$
|
1,055
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
127
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2010
|
|
|
Fiscal 2009
|
|
|
Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service Cost
|
|
$
|
525
|
|
|
$
|
563
|
|
Interest Cost
|
|
|
746
|
|
|
|
717
|
|
Amortization of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior Service Cost
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
Net Loss
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
249
|
|
Settlements
|
|
|
297
|
|
|
|
241
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Periodic Pension Cost
|
|
$
|
1,642
|
|
|
$
|
1,811
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Assumptions for Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount Rate
|
|
|
5.75
|
%
|
|
|
5.75
|
%
|
Expected Return on Plan Assets
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Rate of Compensation Increase
|
|
|
4.50
|
%
|
|
|
4.50
|
%
|
The amount included in other accumulated comprehensive income as
of January 2, 2011 that is expected to be recognized as a
component of net periodic benefit cost in fiscal year 2011 is
$0.2 million.
The benefit payments reflected in the table below represent the
Companys obligations to employees that are eligible for
retirement or have already retired and are receiving deferred
compensation benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
5,944
|
|
2012
|
|
|
236
|
|
2013
|
|
|
234
|
|
2014
|
|
|
284
|
|
2015
|
|
|
296
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
6,836
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
13,830
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company also maintains the GEO Group Inc., Deferred
Compensation Plan (Deferred Compensation Plan), a
non-qualified deferred compensation plan for employees who are
ineligible to participate in its qualified 401(k) plan. Eligible
employees may defer a fixed percentage of their salary and the
Company matches employee contributions up to a certain amount
based on the employees years of service. Payments will be
made at retirement age of 65, at termination of employment or
earlier depending on the employees elections. Effective
December 18, 2009, the Company established a rabbi trust;
the purpose of which is to segregate the assets of the Deferred
Compensation Plan from the Companys cash balances. The
funds in the rabbi trust will not be available to the Company
for any purpose other than to fund the Deferred Compensation
Plan; however, these funds may be available to the
Companys creditors in the event the Company becomes
insolvent. All employee and employer contributions relative to
the Deferred Compensation Plan are made directly to the rabbi
trust. As of January 2, 2011, the Company has transferred
an aggregate of $5.8 million in cash to the rabbi trust to
fund the Deferred Compensation Plan, all of which is reflected
as restricted cash in the accompanying balance sheet. The
Company recognized expense related to its contributions of
$0.2 million, $0.1 million and $0.1 million in
fiscal years 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The total
liability, including the current portion, for this plan at
January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010 was
$6.2 million and $4.7 million, respectively. The
liability, excluding current portion of $0.2 million and
$0.4 million as of January 2, 2011 and
128
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
January 3, 2010, respectively, is included in other
non-current liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance
sheets.
|
|
18.
|
Business
Segment and Geographic Information
|
Operating
and Reporting Segments
The Company conducts its business through four reportable
business segments: U.S. Detention & Corrections
segment; International Services segment; GEO Care segment; and
Facility Construction & Design segment. The Company has
identified these four reportable segments to reflect the current
view that the Company operates four distinct business lines,
each of which constitutes a material part of its overall
business. The U.S. Detention & Corrections segment
primarily encompasses
U.S.-based
privatized corrections and detention business. The International
Services segment primarily consists of privatized corrections
and detention operations in South Africa, Australia and the
United Kingdom. The GEO Care segment, which is operated by the
Companys wholly-owned subsidiary GEO Care, Inc.,
represents services provided to adult offenders and juveniles
for mental health, residential and non-residential treatment,
educational and community based programs and pre-release and
half-way house programs, all of which is currently conducted in
the U.S. The Facility Construction & Design segment
consists of contracts with various state, local and federal
agencies for the design and construction of facilities for which
the Company has management contracts. Generally, the assets and
revenues from the Facility Construction & Design segment
are offset by a similar amount of liabilities and expenses. As a
result of the acquisition of Cornell, managements review
of certain segment financial data was revised with regards to
the Bronx Community Re-entry Center and the Brooklyn Community
Re-entry Center. These facilities now report within the GEO Care
segment and are no longer included with U.S. Detention
& Corrections. Segment disclosures reflect these
reclassifications for all periods presented.
129
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The segment information presented in the prior periods has been
reclassified to conform to the current presentation (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Detention & Corrections
|
|
$
|
842,417
|
|
|
$
|
772,497
|
|
|
$
|
700,587
|
|
International Services
|
|
|
190,477
|
|
|
|
137,171
|
|
|
|
128,672
|
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
213,819
|
|
|
|
133,387
|
|
|
|
127,850
|
|
Facility Construction & Design
|
|
|
23,255
|
|
|
|
98,035
|
|
|
|
85,897
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
$
|
1,269,968
|
|
|
$
|
1,141,090
|
|
|
$
|
1,043,006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Detention & Corrections
|
|
$
|
39,744
|
|
|
$
|
35,855
|
|
|
$
|
33,770
|
|
International Services
|
|
|
1,767
|
|
|
|
1,448
|
|
|
|
1,556
|
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
6,600
|
|
|
|
2,003
|
|
|
|
2,080
|
|
Facility Construction & Design
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total depreciation and amortization
|
|
$
|
48,111
|
|
|
$
|
39,306
|
|
|
$
|
37,406
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Detention & Corrections
|
|
$
|
204,398
|
|
|
$
|
178,329
|
|
|
$
|
156,317
|
|
International Services
|
|
|
12,311
|
|
|
|
8,017
|
|
|
|
10,737
|
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
27,746
|
|
|
|
17,958
|
|
|
|
16,167
|
|
Facility Construction & Design
|
|
|
2,382
|
|
|
|
381
|
|
|
|
326
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income from segments
|
|
|
246,837
|
|
|
|
204,685
|
|
|
|
183,547
|
|
General and Administrative Expenses
|
|
|
(106,364
|
)
|
|
|
(69,240
|
)
|
|
|
(69,151
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating income
|
|
$
|
140,473
|
|
|
$
|
135,445
|
|
|
$
|
114,396
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in revenues for U.S. Detention &
Corrections and GEO Care in 2010 compared to 2009 is primarily
due to the acquisition of Cornell in August 2010 which
contributed additional revenues to these segments of
$85.5 million and $65.7 million, respectively. The
increase in revenues for U.S. Detention &
Corrections in 2009 compared to 2008 is primarily attributable
to project activations, capacity increases and per diem rate
increases at existing facilities and new management contracts.
The Company experienced increases in revenues from International
Services in 2010 as a result of positive fluctuations in foreign
currency translation as well as from its new management
contracts for the operation of the Parklea Correctional Centre
in Sydney, Australia (Parklea) and the Harmondsworth
Immigration Removal Centre in London, England
(Harmondsworth). The Company provided services under
these contracts for the full year in 2010 compared to a partial
period during 2009. In 2010, the Company experienced significant
decreases in revenues reported in its Facility
Construction & Design segment as a result of the
completion of Blackwater River Correctional Facility in Milton
Florida (Blackwater River).
In 2010, a significant increase in operating income for the
U.S. Detention & Corrections and GEO Care
reporting segments was the result of the Companys
acquisition of Cornell in August 2010 which resulted in
additional operating income of $15.9 million and
$10.9 million, respectively. Additional increases related
to GEO Care in 2010, and to a lesser extent in 2009, are
associated with the Companys acquisition of Just Care,
Inc., September 30, 2009. In 2010, the Company experienced
significant decreases in operating income reported in its
Facility Construction & Design segment as a result of
the completion of Blackwater River.
130
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Segment assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Detention & Corrections
|
|
$
|
1,855,777
|
|
|
$
|
1,143,248
|
|
International Services
|
|
|
103,004
|
|
|
|
95,659
|
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
301,601
|
|
|
|
110,231
|
|
Facility Construction & Design
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
13,736
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total segment assets
|
|
$
|
2,260,408
|
|
|
$
|
1,362,874
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets in the Companys Facility Construction & Design
segment are primarily made up of accounts receivable, which
includes trade receivables and construction retainage receivable.
Pre-Tax
Income Reconciliation of Segments
The following is a reconciliation of the Companys total
operating income from its reportable segments to the
Companys income before income taxes, equity in earnings of
affiliates and discontinued operations, in each case, during the
fiscal years ended January 2, 2011, January 3, 2010,
and December 28, 2008, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating income from segments
|
|
$
|
246,837
|
|
|
$
|
204,685
|
|
|
$
|
183,547
|
|
Unallocated amounts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expense
|
|
|
(106,364
|
)
|
|
|
(69,240
|
)
|
|
|
(69,151
|
)
|
Net interest expense
|
|
|
(34,436
|
)
|
|
|
(23,575
|
)
|
|
|
(23,157
|
)
|
Costs related to early extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
(7,933
|
)
|
|
|
(6,839
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes, equity in earnings of affiliates and
discontinued operations
|
|
$
|
98,104
|
|
|
$
|
105,031
|
|
|
$
|
91,239
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset
Reconciliation
The following is a reconciliation of the Companys
reportable segment assets to the Companys total assets as
of January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Reportable segment assets
|
|
$
|
2,260,408
|
|
|
$
|
1,362,874
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
39,664
|
|
|
|
33,856
|
|
Deferred income tax
|
|
|
33,062
|
|
|
|
17,020
|
|
Restricted cash and investments
|
|
|
90,642
|
|
|
|
34,068
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
2,423,776
|
|
|
$
|
1,447,818
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geographic
Information
During each of the fiscal years ended January 2, 2011,
January 3, 2010 and December 28, 2008, the
Companys international operations were conducted through
(i) the Companys wholly owned Australian subsidiary,
The GEO Group Australia Pty. Ltd., through which the Company has
management contracts for four correctional facilities and also
provides comprehensive healthcare services to nine
government-operated prisons; (ii) the Companys
consolidated joint venture in South Africa, SACM, through which
the Company manages one correctional facility; and
(iii) the Companys wholly-owned subsidiary in the
United Kingdom,
131
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The GEO Group UK Ltd., through which the Company manages two
facilities including the Campsfield House Immigration Removal
Centre and the Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. operations
|
|
$
|
1,079,491
|
|
|
$
|
1,003,919
|
|
|
$
|
914,334
|
|
Australia operations
|
|
|
142,648
|
|
|
|
103,197
|
|
|
|
101,995
|
|
South African operations
|
|
|
19,231
|
|
|
|
16,843
|
|
|
|
15,316
|
|
United Kingdom
|
|
|
28,598
|
|
|
|
17,131
|
|
|
|
11,361
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
$
|
1,269,968
|
|
|
$
|
1,141,090
|
|
|
$
|
1,043,006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-lived assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. operations
|
|
$
|
1,506,666
|
|
|
$
|
994,327
|
|
|
$
|
875,703
|
|
Australia operations
|
|
|
3,603
|
|
|
|
2,887
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
South African operations
|
|
|
439
|
|
|
|
447
|
|
|
|
492
|
|
United Kingdom
|
|
|
584
|
|
|
|
899
|
|
|
|
421
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-lived assets
|
|
$
|
1,511,292
|
|
|
$
|
998,560
|
|
|
$
|
878,616
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sources
of Revenue
The Company derives most of its revenue from the management of
privatized correction and detention facilities. The Company also
derives revenue from GEO Care and from the construction and
expansion of new and existing correctional, detention and GEO
Care facilities. All of the Companys revenue is generated
from external customers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Detention & Corrections
|
|
$
|
1,032,894
|
|
|
$
|
909,668
|
|
|
$
|
829,259
|
|
GEO Care
|
|
|
213,819
|
|
|
|
133,387
|
|
|
|
127,850
|
|
Facility Construction & Design
|
|
|
23,255
|
|
|
|
98,035
|
|
|
|
85,897
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
$
|
1,269,968
|
|
|
$
|
1,141,090
|
|
|
$
|
1,043,006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity
in Earnings of Affiliates
Equity in earnings of affiliates for 2010, 2009 and 2008
includes the operating results from one of the Companys
joint ventures in South Africa, SACS. This joint venture is
accounted for under the equity method and the Companys
investment in SACS is presented as a component of other
non-current assets in the accompanying consolidated balance
sheets.
132
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
A summary of financial data for SACS is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
Statement of Operations Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
46,005
|
|
|
$
|
37,736
|
|
|
$
|
35,558
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
18,350
|
|
|
|
14,958
|
|
|
|
13,688
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
8,435
|
|
|
|
7,034
|
|
|
|
9,247
|
|
Balance Sheet Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
|
40,624
|
|
|
|
33,808
|
|
|
|
18,421
|
|
Noncurrent assets
|
|
|
50,613
|
|
|
|
47,453
|
|
|
|
37,722
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
3,552
|
|
|
|
2,888
|
|
|
|
2,245
|
|
Non-current liabilities
|
|
|
60,129
|
|
|
|
53,877
|
|
|
|
41,321
|
|
Shareholders equity
|
|
|
27,556
|
|
|
|
24,496
|
|
|
|
12,577
|
|
As of January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010, the
Companys investment in SACS was $13.8 million and
$12.2 million, respectively. The investment is included in
other non-current assets in the accompanying consolidated
balance sheets.
Business
Concentration
Except for the major customers noted in the following table, no
other single customer made up greater than 10% of the
Companys consolidated revenues for the following fiscal
years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Various agencies of the U.S Federal Government:
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
31
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
Various agencies of the State of Florida:
|
|
|
14
|
%
|
|
|
16
|
%
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
Credit risk related to accounts receivable is reflective of the
related revenues.
The United States and foreign components of income (loss) before
income taxes and equity income from affiliates are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes, equity earnings in
affiliates, and discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
84,531
|
|
|
$
|
96,651
|
|
|
$
|
78,542
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
13,573
|
|
|
|
8,380
|
|
|
|
12,697
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98,104
|
|
|
|
105,031
|
|
|
|
91,239
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operation of discontinued business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(562
|
)
|
|
|
(2,316
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
98,104
|
|
|
$
|
104,469
|
|
|
$
|
88,923
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
133
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Taxes on income (loss) consist of the following components:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Federal income taxes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
$
|
13,316
|
|
|
$
|
24,443
|
|
|
$
|
24,164
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
16,070
|
|
|
|
10,734
|
|
|
|
2,621
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,386
|
|
|
|
35,177
|
|
|
|
26,785
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State income taxes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
2,713
|
|
|
|
2,889
|
|
|
|
2,626
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
3,136
|
|
|
|
310
|
|
|
|
(558
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,849
|
|
|
|
3,199
|
|
|
|
2,068
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
5,562
|
|
|
|
4,737
|
|
|
|
4,587
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
(1,265
|
)
|
|
|
(1,034
|
)
|
|
|
593
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,297
|
|
|
|
3,703
|
|
|
|
5,180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total U.S. and foreign
|
|
|
39,532
|
|
|
|
42,079
|
|
|
|
34,033
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes (benefit) from operations of discontinued business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(216
|
)
|
|
|
236
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
39,532
|
|
|
$
|
41,863
|
|
|
$
|
34,269
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A reconciliation of the statutory U.S. federal tax rate
(35.0%) and the effective income tax rate is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Continuing operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provisions using statutory federal income tax rate
|
|
$
|
34,336
|
|
|
$
|
36,761
|
|
|
$
|
31,934
|
|
State income taxes, net of federal tax benefit
|
|
|
3,671
|
|
|
|
2,949
|
|
|
|
2,635
|
|
Change in contingent tax liabilities
|
|
|
(2,366
|
)
|
|
|
1,591
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact of nondeductible transaction costs
|
|
|
3,230
|
|
|
|
283
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
661
|
|
|
|
495
|
|
|
|
(536
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total continuing operations
|
|
|
39,532
|
|
|
|
42,079
|
|
|
|
34,033
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes (benefit) from operations of discontinued business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(216
|
)
|
|
|
236
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision (benefit) for income taxes
|
|
$
|
39,532
|
|
|
$
|
41,863
|
|
|
$
|
34,269
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
134
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The components of the net current deferred income tax asset as
of January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
$
|
20,277
|
|
|
$
|
11,938
|
|
Accrued compensation
|
|
|
8,805
|
|
|
|
4,438
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
3,044
|
|
|
|
644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total asset
|
|
$
|
32,126
|
|
|
$
|
17,020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The components of the net non-current deferred income tax asset
as of January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010 are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
$
|
936
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total asset
|
|
$
|
936
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The components of the net non-current deferred income tax
liability as of January 2, 2011 and January 3, 2010
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Deferred compensation
|
|
$
|
7,628
|
|
|
$
|
7,955
|
|
Net operating losses
|
|
|
7,988
|
|
|
|
6,150
|
|
Tax credits
|
|
|
4,414
|
|
|
|
4,203
|
|
Deferred loan costs
|
|
|
2,143
|
|
|
|
2,211
|
|
Equity Awards
|
|
|
2,047
|
|
|
|
1,638
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
223
|
|
|
|
1,700
|
|
Bond discount
|
|
|
(780
|
)
|
|
|
(916
|
)
|
Residual U.S. tax liability on unrepatriated foreign earnings
|
|
|
(3,052
|
)
|
|
|
(1,775
|
)
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(7,793
|
)
|
|
|
(5,587
|
)
|
Deferred Rent
|
|
|
(10,630
|
)
|
|
|
( 684
|
)
|
Intangible assets
|
|
|
(28,657
|
)
|
|
|
(5,521
|
)
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
(37,077
|
)
|
|
|
(16,434
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liability
|
|
$
|
(63,546
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7,060
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes should be reduced by a valuation allowance
if it is not more likely than not that some portion or all of
the deferred tax assets will be realized. On a periodic basis,
management evaluates and determines the amount of the valuation
allowance required and adjusts such valuation allowance
accordingly. At fiscal year end 2010 and 2009, the Company has a
valuation allowance of $7.9 million and $6.0 million,
respectively related to deferred tax assets for foreign net
operating losses, state net operating losses and state tax
credits. The valuation allowance increased by $1.9 million
during the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011 primarily due
to additional state net operating losses acquired as part of the
merger with Cornell. In the fiscal year ended January 3,
2010, the Company implemented new guidance relative to the
accounting for business combinations and as such, for years
beginning after December 15, 2008, the Company records the
reduction of a valuation allowance related to business
acquisitions as a reduction of income tax expense.
The Company provides income taxes on the undistributed earnings
of
non-U.S. subsidiaries
except to the extent that such earnings are indefinitely
invested outside the United States. At January 2, 2011,
$13.1 million of accumulated undistributed earnings of
non-U.S. subsidiaries
were indefinitely invested. At the existing
135
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
U.S. federal income tax rate, additional taxes (net of
foreign tax credits) of $4.1 million would have to be
provided if such earnings were remitted currently.
At fiscal year end 2010, the Company had $3.9 million of
Federal net operating loss carryforwards which begin to expire
in 2020 and $50.3 million of combined net operating loss
carryforwards in various states which begin to expire in 2011.
Also at fiscal year end 2010, the Company had $11.8 million
of foreign operating losses which carry forward indefinitely and
$6.8 million of state tax credits which begin to expire in
2011. The Company has recorded a full and partial valuation
allowance against the deferred tax assets related to the foreign
operating losses and state tax credits, respectively.
In fiscal 2008, the Companys equity affiliate SACS
recognized a one time tax benefit of $1.9 million related
to a change in the tax treatment applicable to the affiliate
with retroactive effect. Under the tax treatment, expenses which
were previously disallowed are now deductible for South African
tax purposes. The one time tax benefit relates to an increase in
the deferred tax assets of the affiliate as a result of the
change in tax treatment.
The Company recognizes the cost of employee services received in
exchange for awards of equity instruments based upon the grant
date fair value of those awards. The exercise of non-qualified
stock options which have been granted under the Companys
stock option plans give rise to compensation income which is
includable in the taxable income of the applicable employees and
deducted by the Company for federal and state income tax
purposes. Such compensation income results from increases in the
fair market value of the Companys common stock subsequent
to the date of grant. At fiscal year end 2010, the deferred tax
asset net of a valuation allowance related to unexercised stock
options and restricted stock grants for which the company has
recorded a book expense was $2.5 million.
The Company implemented guidance relative to accounting for
uncertainties in income taxes, effective at the beginning of the
Companys fiscal year ended December 30, 2007. The
Company recognizes the financial statement benefit of a tax
position only after determining that the relevant tax authority
would more likely than not sustain the position following an
audit. For tax positions meeting the more-likely-than-not
threshold, the amount recognized in the financial statements is
the largest benefit that has a greater than 50 percent
likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement with the
relevant tax authority.
A reconciliation of the beginning and ending amount of
unrecognized tax benefits is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Balance at Beginning of Period
|
|
$
|
5,947
|
|
|
$
|
5,889
|
|
|
$
|
5,417
|
|
Additions based on tax positions related to the current year
|
|
|
3,251
|
|
|
|
479
|
|
|
|
1,877
|
|
Additions for tax positions of prior years
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
|
4,854
|
|
|
|
659
|
|
Additions from current year acquisitions
|
|
|
2,928
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reductions for tax positions of prior years
|
|
|
(2,891
|
)
|
|
|
(1,877
|
)
|
|
|
(1,809
|
)
|
Reductions as result of a lapse of applicable statutes of
limitations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(169
|
)
|
Settlements
|
|
|
(173
|
)
|
|
|
(3,398
|
)
|
|
|
(86
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at End of Period
|
|
$
|
9,262
|
|
|
$
|
5,947
|
|
|
$
|
5,889
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All amounts in the reconciliation are reported on a gross basis
and do not reflect a federal tax benefit on state income taxes.
Inclusive of the federal tax benefit on state income taxes the
ending balance as of January 2, 2011 is $8.0 million.
Included in the balance at January 2, 2011 is
$3.2 million related to tax
136
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
positions for which the ultimate deductibility is highly
certain, but for which there is uncertainty about the timing of
such deductibility. Under deferred tax accounting, the timing of
a deduction does not affect the annual effective tax rate but
does affect the timing of tax payments. In addition to a
decrease in the unrecognized tax benefits related to the
reversal of these timing related tax positions, the Company also
anticipates a significant decrease in the unrecognized tax
benefits within 12 months of the reporting date of
approximately $2.3 million. Reductions for tax positions of
prior years reported in the reconciliation for 2010 include
amounts related to proposed federal audit adjustments for the
years 2002 through 2005, for which the company reached an
agreement with the office of IRS Appeals which is currently
being reviewed at a higher level. The balance at January 2,
2011 includes $4.0 million of unrecognized tax benefits
which, if ultimately recognized, will reduce the Companys
annual effective tax rate.
The Company is subject to income taxes in the U.S. federal
jurisdiction, and various states and foreign jurisdictions. Tax
regulations within each jurisdiction are subject to the
interpretation of the related tax laws and regulations and
require significant judgment to apply. With few exceptions, the
Company is no longer subject to U.S. federal, state and
local, or
non-U.S. income
tax examinations by tax authorities for the years before 2002.
In the fourth quarter of 2009 the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service commenced an examination of the Companys
U.S. income tax returns for 2006 through 2008. In October
2010, the audit was concluded and resulted in no changes to the
Companys income tax positions.
During the fourth fiscal quarter of 2009, the IRS completed its
examination of the Companys U.S. federal income tax
returns for the years 2002 through 2005. Following the
examination, the IRS notified the Company that it proposed to
disallow a deduction that the Company realized during the 2005
tax year. The Company appealed this proposed disallowed
deduction with the IRSs appeals division. In December
2010, the Company reached an agreement with the office of IRS
Appeals on the amount of the deduction which is currently being
reviewed at a higher level. The Company previously reported that
if the disallowed deduction were to be sustained on appeal, it
could result in a potential tax exposure to the Company of up to
$15.4 million. The Company believes in the merits of its
position and intends to defend its rights vigorously, including
its rights to litigate the matter if it cannot be resolved
favorably at the IRSs appeals level. If this matter is
resolved unfavorably, it may have a material adverse effect on
the Companys financial position, results of operations and
cash flows.
The calculation of the Companys provision (benefit) for
income taxes requires the use of significant judgment and
involves dealing with uncertainties in the application of
complex tax laws and regulations. In determining the adequacy of
the Companys provision (benefit) for income taxes,
potential settlement outcomes resulting from income tax
examinations are regularly assessed. As such, the final outcome
of tax examinations, including the total amount payable or the
timing of any such payments upon resolution of these issues,
cannot be estimated with certainty.
During the fiscal years ended January 2, 2011,
January 3, 2010 and December 28, 2008, the Company
recognized $(0.8) million, $0.1 million and
$0.4 million in interest and penalties, respectively. The
Company had accrued $1.5 million and $2.0 million for
the payment of interest and penalties at January 2, 2011,
and January 3, 2010, respectively. The Company classifies
interest and penalties as interest expense and other expense,
respectively.
137
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
20.
|
Selected
Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)
|
The Companys selected quarterly financial data is as
follows (in thousands, except per share data):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter(4)
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues(1)
|
|
$
|
287,542
|
|
|
$
|
280,095
|
|
|
$
|
327,933
|
|
|
$
|
374,398
|
|
Operating income(2)
|
|
|
34,524
|
|
|
|
33,050
|
|
|
|
29,524
|
|
|
|
43,375
|
|
Income from continuing operations(3)
|
|
|
17,708
|
|
|
|
17,025
|
|
|
|
5,010
|
|
|
|
23,047
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
0.35
|
|
|
$
|
0.35
|
|
|
$
|
0.09
|
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share
|
|
$
|
0.35
|
|
|
$
|
0.35
|
|
|
$
|
0.09
|
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
Diluted earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
0.34
|
|
|
$
|
0.35
|
|
|
$
|
0.09
|
|
|
$
|
0.36
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share
|
|
$
|
0.34
|
|
|
$
|
0.35
|
|
|
$
|
0.09
|
|
|
$
|
0.36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter(4)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues(1)
|
|
$
|
259,061
|
|
|
$
|
276,379
|
|
|
$
|
294,865
|
|
|
$
|
310,785
|
|
Operating income(2)
|
|
|
29,723
|
|
|
|
30,954
|
|
|
|
35,217
|
|
|
|
39,551
|
|
Income from continuing operations(3)
|
|
|
15,096
|
|
|
|
16,551
|
|
|
|
19,302
|
|
|
|
15,520
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
(366
|
)
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
0.30
|
|
|
$
|
0.32
|
|
|
$
|
0.38
|
|
|
$
|
0.30
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share
|
|
$
|
0.29
|
|
|
$
|
0.33
|
|
|
$
|
0.38
|
|
|
$
|
0.30
|
|
Diluted earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
0.29
|
|
|
$
|
0.32
|
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
|
$
|
0.30
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share
|
|
$
|
0.28
|
|
|
$
|
0.32
|
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
|
$
|
0.30
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Revenues increased in First and Second Quarters of 2010 compared
to 2009 primarily as a result of contributions from the
International Services segment which benefited from changes in
foreign currency translation rates and new contracts for the
operation of Parklea Correctional Centre in Australia and
Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre in the United Kingdom.
The Company also experienced increases in its GEO Care segment
during these same periods due to the operation of the Columbia
Regional Care Center in Columbia, South Carolina. The primary
increases in the Third and Fourth Quarters of 2010 compared to
the same periods in 2009 were primarily attributable to the
Companys acquisition of Cornell in August 2010. Revenues
in Third Quarter 2010 and Fourth Quarter 2010 include
$53.6 million and $97.6 million, respectively, in
Cornell revenues. Second Quarter 2010, Third Quarter 2010, and
Fourth Quarter 2010 revenues for the Facility Construction
& Design segment were significantly |
138
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
lower than revenues generated in these same periods during 2009
primarily due to the completion of Blackwater River Correctional
Facility. The decrease in revenues related to this segment for
these periods was $20.1 million, $36.2 million and
$19.9 million, respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Operating income for Third Quarter 2010 and Fourth Quarter 2010
includes the impact of non-recurring transaction expenses of
$15.7 million and $9.7 million, respectively,
associated with the Companys acquisition of Cornell in
August 2010 and its acquisition of BI completed in February
2011. Operating income for approximately half of Third Quarter
2010 and for the entire Fourth Quarter 2010 includes
$7.6 million and $19.2 million, respectively, of
Cornells results. Operating income for First, Second,
Third and Fourth Quarters 2009 includes start up costs of
$1.2 million, $0.6 million, $1.0 million and
$2.1 million, respectively for new facility management
contracts. |
|
(3) |
|
Income from continuing operations in Fourth Quarter 2010 and
Fourth Quarter 2009 includes losses of $7.9 million and
$6.8 million, respectively, associated with the
extinguishment of debt. In October 2010, the Company terminated
its Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement and entered into
a new Senior Credit Facility. In October 2009, the Company
repaid its
81/4% Senior
Notes and wrote off the related deferred financing costs. |
|
(4) |
|
Fourth Quarter 2009 was a fourteen-week fiscal period in the
fifty-three week fiscal year ended January 3, 2010. All of
the other fiscal quarters presented had thirteen-week reporting
periods. |
Acquisition
of B.I. Incorporated
On February 10, 2011, the Company completed its previously
announced acquisition of B.I., a Colorado corporation, pursuant
to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
December 21, 2010 (the Merger Agreement), with
BII Holding, a Delaware corporation, which owns BI, GEO
Acquisition IV, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of GEO (Merger Sub), BII Investors IF LP,
in its capacity as the stockholders representative, and
AEA Investors 2006 Fund L.P. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into BII Holding (the
Merger), with BII Holding emerging as the surviving
corporation of the merger. As a result of the Merger, the
Company paid merger consideration of $415.0 million in cash
excluding transaction related expenses and subject to certain
adjustments. Under the Merger Agreement, $12.5 million of
the merger consideration was placed in an escrow account for a
one-year period to satisfy any applicable indemnification claims
pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement by GEO, the Merger
Sub or its affiliates. At the time of the BI Acquisition,
approximately $78.4 million, including accrued interest was
outstanding under BIs senior term loan and
$107.5 million, including accrued interest was outstanding
under its senior subordinated note purchase agreement, excluding
the unamortized debt discount. All indebtedness of BI under its
senior term loan and senior subordinated note purchase agreement
were repaid by BI with a portion of the $415.0 million of
merger consideration. BI will be integrated into the
Companys wholly-owned subsidiary, GEO Care.
The Company is identified as the acquiring company for US GAAP
accounting purposes. Under the purchase method of accounting,
the purchase price for BI will be allocated to BIs net
tangible and intangible assets based on their estimated fair
values as of February 10, 2011, the date of closing and the
date that the Company obtained control over BI. In order to
determine the fair values of a significant portion of the assets
acquired and liabilities assumed, the Company will likely engage
a third party independent valuation specialist. For any other
assets acquired and liabilities assumed for which the Company is
not obtaining an independent valuation, the fair value
determined by the Companys management will represent the
price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to
transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market
participants. With the exception of any adjustments which may
occur during the one-year measurement period proscribed by GAAP,
the Company expects to establish a preliminary purchase price
allocation with respect to the acquisition of BI by the end of
the first quarter of the fiscal year 2011. The accounting for
this acquisition was
139
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
not complete at the time of this filing and accordingly, the
Company has not presented the required business combination
disclosures. The Company expects to record goodwill in
connection with this transaction however, due to the timing of
the closing of the transaction and the filing date of the
Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
it was impracticable for the Company to determine the value of
any goodwill. As of the date of this filing, several significant
inputs to the purchase accounting model had not been completed
such as valuations for: (i) intangible assets related to
acquired service contracts, (ii) property and equipment
acquired, (iii) intangible assets related to any research
and development projects
and/or
technology, (iv) intangible assets relative to trade names
and patents, (vi) income taxes, (vii) other assets and
liabilities for which the Company has not yet determined fair
value. Additionally, it was impracticable to include meaningful
pro forma financial results for the Company and BI on a combined
basis as BI has a different fiscal year end than the Company and
has not yet completed the close process around its quarterly
financial information or its compilation for financial
statements for a twelve-month period. The Company expects the
pro forma adjustments to primarily consist of incremental
interest expense related to the cash paid to the BI
shareholders, estimates for the amortization of acquisition
intangible assets, depreciation expense based on the fair value
of property and equipment acquired, income tax effects, and
other expenses which will result from the purchase price
allocation and determination of fair value for assets acquired
and liabilities assumed.
Stock-Based
Awards
On February 28, 2011, the Companys Board of Directors
approved the award of 205,000 performance based shares to the
Companys Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice
Presidents which will vest over a
3-year
period. These awards will be forfeited if the Company does not
achieve certain targeted revenue in its fiscal year ended
January 1, 2012.
Senior
Notes due 2021
On February 10, 2011, the Company completed the issuance of
$300.0 million in aggregate principal amount of ten-year,
6.625% senior unsecured notes due 2021 (the 6.625%
Senior Notes) in a private offering under an Indenture
dated as of February 10, 2011 among the Company, certain of
its domestic subsidiaries, as guarantors, and Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, as trustee. The 2021 Notes were offered
and sold to qualified institutional buyers in accordance with
Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
outside the United States in accordance with Regulations S under
the Securities Act. The 6.625% Senior Notes were issued at a
coupon rate and yield to maturity of 6.625%. Interest on the
6.625% Senior Notes will accrue at the rate of 6.625% per annum
and will be payable semi-annually in arrears on February 15 and
August 15, commencing on August 15, 2011. The 6.625%
Senior Notes mature on February 15, 2021. The Company used
the net proceeds from this offering along with
$150.0 million of borrowings under its Senior Credit
Facility to finance the acquisition of BI and to pay related
fees, costs, and expenses. The Company used the remaining net
proceeds for general corporate purposes.
Amendment
to Senior Credit Facility
On February 8, 2011, the Company entered into Amendment
No. 1, dated as of February 8, 2011, to the Credit
Agreement dated as of August 4, 2010, by and among the
Company, the Guarantors party thereto, the lenders party thereto
and BNP Paribas, as administrative agent, (Amendment
No. 1). Amendment No. 1, among other things
amended certain definitions and covenants relating to the total
leverage ratios and the senior secured leverage ratios set forth
in the Credit Agreement. This amendment increased the
Companys borrowing capacity by $250.0 million and is
comprised of $150.0 million in borrowings under a new Term
Loan A-2 due
August 2015, initially bearing interest at LIBOR plus 2.75%, and
an incremental $100.0 million in borrowing capacity under
the existing Revolver. Following the amendment, the Senior
Credit Facility is now comprised of: $150.0 million Term
Loan A due August 2015; $150.0 million Term Loan
A-2 due
August 2015; $200.0 million Term Loan B due August 2016;
and $500.0 million Revolving Credit Facility due August
140
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
2015. Incremental borrowings of $150.0 million under our
amended Senior Credit Facility along with proceeds from our
$300.0 million offering of the 6.625% Senior Notes
were used to finance the acquisition of BI. As of
February 10, 2011 and following the BI acquisition, the
Company had $493.4 million in borrowings outstanding, net
of discount, under the Term Loans, $210.0 million in
borrowings under the Revolving Credit Facility, approximately
$56.2 million in letters of credit and $233.8 million
in additional borrowing capacity under the Revolving Credit
Facility.
|
|
22.
|
Condensed
Consolidating Financial Information
|
On October 20, 2009, the Company completed an offering of
$250.0 million aggregate principal amount of its
73/4% Senior
Notes due 2017 (the Original Notes). The Original
Notes were sold to qualified institutional buyers in accordance
with Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(the Securities Act), and outside the United States
only to
non-U.S. persons
in accordance with Regulation S promulgated under the
Securities Act. In connection with the sale of the Original
Notes, the Company entered into a Registration Rights Agreement
with the initial purchasers of the Original Notes party thereto,
pursuant to which the Company and its Subsidiary Guarantors (as
defined below) agreed to file a registration statement with
respect to an offer to exchange the Original Notes for a new
issue of substantially identical notes registered under the
Securities Act (the Exchange Notes, and together
with the Original Notes, the
73/4% Senior
Notes). The
73/4% Senior
Notes are fully and unconditionally guaranteed on a joint and
several senior unsecured basis by the Company and certain of its
wholly-owned domestic subsidiaries (the Subsidiary
Guarantors).
The following condensed consolidating financial information,
which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements for
presentation of
Rule 3-10(d)
of
Regulation S-X
promulgated under the Securities Act, presents the condensed
consolidating financial information separately for:
(i) The GEO Group, Inc., as the issuer of the
73/4% Senior
Notes;
(ii) The Subsidiary Guarantors, on a combined basis, which
are 100% owned by The Geo Group, Inc., and which are guarantors
of the
73/4% Senior
Notes;
(iii) The Companys other subsidiaries, on a combined
basis, which are not guarantors of the
73/4% Senior
Notes (the Subsidiary Non-Guarantors);
(iv) Consolidating entries and eliminations representing
adjustments to (a) eliminate intercompany transactions
between or among the Company, the Subsidiary Guarantors and the
Subsidiary Non-Guarantors and (b) eliminate the investments
in the Companys subsidiaries; and
(v) The Company and its subsidiaries on a consolidated
basis.
141
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEET
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary
|
|
|
Non-Guarantor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The GEO Group Inc.
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Subsidiaries
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
2,614
|
|
|
$
|
221
|
|
|
$
|
36,829
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
39,664
|
|
Restricted cash and investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,150
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,150
|
|
Accounts receivable, less allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
121,749
|
|
|
|
129,903
|
|
|
|
23,832
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
275,484
|
|
Deferred income tax assets, net
|
|
|
15,191
|
|
|
|
12,808
|
|
|
|
4,127
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,126
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
12,325
|
|
|
|
23,555
|
|
|
|
9,256
|
|
|
|
(8,426
|
)
|
|
|
36,710
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
151,879
|
|
|
|
166,487
|
|
|
|
115,194
|
|
|
|
(8,426
|
)
|
|
|
425,134
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted Cash and Investments
|
|
|
6,168
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,324
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,492
|
|
Property and Equipment, Net
|
|
|
433,219
|
|
|
|
867,046
|
|
|
|
211,027
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,511,292
|
|
Assets Held for Sale
|
|
|
3,083
|
|
|
|
6,887
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,970
|
|
Direct Finance Lease Receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,544
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,544
|
|
Intercompany Receivable
|
|
|
203,703
|
|
|
|
14,380
|
|
|
|
1,805
|
|
|
|
(219,888
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Income Tax Assets, Net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
936
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
936
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
244,151
|
|
|
|
762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
244,947
|
|
Intangible Assets, Net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85,384
|
|
|
|
2,429
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87,813
|
|
Investment in Subsidiaries
|
|
|
1,184,297
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,184,297
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other Non-Current Assets
|
|
|
24,020
|
|
|
|
45,820
|
|
|
|
28,558
|
|
|
|
(41,750
|
)
|
|
|
56,648
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,006,403
|
|
|
$
|
1,430,155
|
|
|
$
|
441,579
|
|
|
$
|
(1,454,361
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,423,776
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
57,015
|
|
|
$
|
13,254
|
|
|
$
|
3,611
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
73,880
|
|
Accrued payroll and related taxes
|
|
|
6,535
|
|
|
|
10,965
|
|
|
|
15,861
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,361
|
|
Accrued expenses
|
|
|
55,081
|
|
|
|
41,368
|
|
|
|
33,624
|
|
|
|
(8,426
|
)
|
|
|
121,647
|
|
Current portion of capital lease obligations, long-term debt and
non-recourse debt
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
782
|
|
|
|
31,292
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,574
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
128,131
|
|
|
|
66,369
|
|
|
|
84,388
|
|
|
|
(8,426
|
)
|
|
|
270,462
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Income Tax Liabilities
|
|
|
15,874
|
|
|
|
47,652
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63,546
|
|
Intercompany Payable
|
|
|
1,805
|
|
|
|
199,994
|
|
|
|
18,089
|
|
|
|
(219,888
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other Non-Current Liabilities
|
|
|
22,767
|
|
|
|
25,839
|
|
|
|
40,006
|
|
|
|
(41,750
|
)
|
|
|
46,862
|
|
Capital Lease Obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,686
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,686
|
|
Long-Term Debt
|
|
|
798,336
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
798,336
|
|
Non-Recourse Debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
191,394
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
191,394
|
|
Commitments & Contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Shareholders Equity
|
|
|
1,039,490
|
|
|
|
1,076,615
|
|
|
|
107,682
|
|
|
|
(1,184,297
|
)
|
|
|
1,039,490
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,006,403
|
|
|
$
|
1,430,155
|
|
|
$
|
441,579
|
|
|
$
|
(1,454,361
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,423,776
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEET
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 3, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary
|
|
|
Non-Guarantor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The GEO Group Inc.
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Subsidiaries
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
12,376
|
|
|
$
|
5,333
|
|
|
$
|
16,147
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
33,856
|
|
Restricted cash and investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,313
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,313
|
|
Accounts receivable, less allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
110,643
|
|
|
|
53,457
|
|
|
|
36,656
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200,756
|
|
Deferred income tax assets, net
|
|
|
12,197
|
|
|
|
1,354
|
|
|
|
3,469
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,020
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
4,428
|
|
|
|
2,311
|
|
|
|
7,950
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,689
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
139,644
|
|
|
|
62,455
|
|
|
|
77,535
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
279,634
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted Cash and Investments
|
|
|
2,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,855
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,755
|
|
Property and Equipment, Net
|
|
|
438,504
|
|
|
|
489,586
|
|
|
|
70,470
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
998,560
|
|
Assets Held for Sale
|
|
|
3,083
|
|
|
|
1,265
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,348
|
|
Direct Finance Lease Receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,162
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,162
|
|
Intercompany Receivable
|
|
|
3,324
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
1,712
|
|
|
|
(18,036
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
39,387
|
|
|
|
669
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,090
|
|
Intangible Assets, Net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,268
|
|
|
|
2,311
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,579
|
|
Investment in Subsidiaries
|
|
|
650,605
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(650,605
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other Non-Current Assets
|
|
|
23,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,259
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,690
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,261,525
|
|
|
$
|
620,961
|
|
|
$
|
233,973
|
|
|
$
|
(668,641
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,447,818
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
35,949
|
|
|
$
|
6,622
|
|
|
$
|
9,285
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
51,856
|
|
Accrued payroll and related taxes
|
|
|
6,729
|
|
|
|
5,414
|
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,209
|
|
Accrued expenses
|
|
|
55,720
|
|
|
|
2,890
|
|
|
|
22,149
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80,759
|
|
Current portion of capital lease obligations, long-term debt and
non-recourse debt
|
|
|
3,678
|
|
|
|
705
|
|
|
|
15,241
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,624
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
102,076
|
|
|
|
15,631
|
|
|
|
59,741
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
177,448
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Income Tax Liabilities
|
|
|
6,652
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
408
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,060
|
|
Intercompany Payable
|
|
|
1,712
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,324
|
|
|
|
(18,036
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other Non-Current Liabilities
|
|
|
32,127
|
|
|
|
1,015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,142
|
|
Capital Lease Obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,419
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,419
|
|
Long-Term Debt
|
|
|
453,860
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
453,860
|
|
Non-Recourse Debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96,791
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96,791
|
|
Commitments & Contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Shareholders Equity
|
|
|
665,098
|
|
|
|
589,896
|
|
|
|
60,709
|
|
|
|
(650,605
|
)
|
|
|
665,098
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,261,525
|
|
|
$
|
620,961
|
|
|
$
|
233,973
|
|
|
$
|
(668,641
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,447,818
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
143
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Year Ended January 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary
|
|
|
Non-Guarantor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The GEO Group, Inc.
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Subsidiaries
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
589,009
|
|
|
$
|
522,526
|
|
|
$
|
226,005
|
|
|
$
|
(67,572
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,269,968
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
518,387
|
|
|
|
344,046
|
|
|
|
180,159
|
|
|
|
(67,572
|
)
|
|
|
975,020
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization
|
|
|
17,011
|
|
|
|
25,787
|
|
|
|
5,313
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,111
|
|
General and Administrative Expenses
|
|
|
46,840
|
|
|
|
41,552
|
|
|
|
17,972
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
106,364
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income
|
|
|
6,771
|
|
|
|
111,141
|
|
|
|
22,561
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140,473
|
|
Interest Income
|
|
|
5,309
|
|
|
|
1,326
|
|
|
|
5,836
|
|
|
|
(6,200
|
)
|
|
|
6,271
|
|
Interest Expense
|
|
|
(29,484
|
)
|
|
|
(6,126
|
)
|
|
|
(11,297
|
)
|
|
|
6,200
|
|
|
|
(40,707
|
)
|
Loss on Extinguishment of Debt
|
|
|
(7,933
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,933
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes, Equity in Earnings of
Affiliates, and Discontinued Operations
|
|
|
(25,337
|
)
|
|
|
106,341
|
|
|
|
17,100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98,104
|
|
Provision for Income Taxes
|
|
|
(6,775
|
)
|
|
|
41,090
|
|
|
|
5,217
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,532
|
|
Equity in Earnings of Affiliates, net of income tax provision
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,218
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,218
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from Continuing Operations Before Equity Income of
Consolidated Subsidiaries
|
|
|
(18,562
|
)
|
|
|
65,251
|
|
|
|
16,101
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62,790
|
|
Income from Consolidated Subsidiaries, net of income tax
provision
|
|
|
81,352
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(81,352
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from Continuing Operations
|
|
|
62,790
|
|
|
|
65,251
|
|
|
|
16,101
|
|
|
|
(81,352
|
)
|
|
|
62,790
|
|
Add (Subtract): Loss (Earnings) Attributable to Noncontrolling
Interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
678
|
|
|
|
678
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income Attributable to The GEO Group, Inc.
|
|
$
|
62,790
|
|
|
$
|
65,251
|
|
|
$
|
16,101
|
|
|
$
|
(80,674
|
)
|
|
$
|
63,468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Year Ended January 3, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary
|
|
|
Non-Guarantor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The GEO Group Inc.
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Subsidiaries
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
620,271
|
|
|
$
|
335,588
|
|
|
$
|
235,747
|
|
|
$
|
(50,516
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,141,090
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
523,820
|
|
|
|
218,679
|
|
|
|
205,116
|
|
|
|
(50,516
|
)
|
|
|
897,099
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization
|
|
|
17,877
|
|
|
|
17,128
|
|
|
|
4,301
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,306
|
|
General and Administrative Expenses
|
|
|
36,042
|
|
|
|
19,500
|
|
|
|
13,698
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69,240
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income
|
|
|
42,532
|
|
|
|
80,281
|
|
|
|
12,632
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135,445
|
|
Interest Income
|
|
|
202
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
4,729
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,943
|
|
Interest Expense
|
|
|
(19,709
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,809
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28,518
|
)
|
Loss on Extinguishment of Debt
|
|
|
(6,839
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,839
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes, Equity in Earnings of
Affiliates, and Discontinued Operations
|
|
|
16,186
|
|
|
|
80,293
|
|
|
|
8,552
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105,031
|
|
Provision for Income Taxes
|
|
|
6,439
|
|
|
|
31,937
|
|
|
|
3,703
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42,079
|
|
Equity in Earnings of Affiliates, net of income tax provision
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,517
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,517
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from Continuing Operations Before Equity Income of
Consolidated Subsidiaries
|
|
|
9,747
|
|
|
|
48,356
|
|
|
|
8,366
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66,469
|
|
Income from Consolidated Subsidiaries, net of income tax
provision
|
|
|
56,722
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(56,722
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from Continuing Operations
|
|
|
66,469
|
|
|
|
48,356
|
|
|
|
8,366
|
|
|
|
(56,722
|
)
|
|
|
66,469
|
|
Loss from Discontinued Operations, net of income tax provision
|
|
|
(346
|
)
|
|
|
(193
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
193
|
|
|
|
(346
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
|
66,123
|
|
|
|
48,163
|
|
|
|
8,366
|
|
|
|
(56,529
|
)
|
|
|
66,123
|
|
Add (Subtract): Loss (Earnings) Attributable to Noncontrolling
Interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(169
|
)
|
|
|
(169
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income Attributable to The GEO Group, Inc.
|
|
$
|
66,123
|
|
|
$
|
48,163
|
|
|
$
|
8,366
|
|
|
$
|
(56,698
|
)
|
|
$
|
65,954
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
145
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 28, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary
|
|
|
Non-Guarantor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The GEO Group Inc.
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Subsidiaries
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
545,590
|
|
|
$
|
327,079
|
|
|
$
|
215,157
|
|
|
$
|
(44,820
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,043,006
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
469,903
|
|
|
|
216,380
|
|
|
|
180,590
|
|
|
|
(44,820
|
)
|
|
|
822,053
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization
|
|
|
16,284
|
|
|
|
16,120
|
|
|
|
5,002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,406
|
|
General and Administrative Expenses
|
|
|
34,682
|
|
|
|
20,792
|
|
|
|
13,677
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69,151
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income
|
|
|
24,721
|
|
|
|
73,787
|
|
|
|
15,888
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
114,396
|
|
Interest Income
|
|
|
323
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
6,638
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,045
|
|
Interest Expense
|
|
|
(20,505
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,697
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30,202
|
)
|
Loss on Extinguishment of Debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes, Equity in Earnings of
Affiliates, and Discontinued Operations
|
|
|
4,539
|
|
|
|
73,871
|
|
|
|
12,829
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91,239
|
|
Provision for Income Taxes
|
|
|
1,670
|
|
|
|
27,183
|
|
|
|
5,180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,033
|
|
Equity in Earnings of Affiliates, net of income tax provision
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from Continuing Operations Before Equity Income of
Consolidated Subsidiaries
|
|
|
2,869
|
|
|
|
46,688
|
|
|
|
12,272
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,829
|
|
Income from Consolidated Subsidiaries, net of income tax
provision
|
|
|
58,960
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(58,960
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from Continuing Operations
|
|
|
61,829
|
|
|
|
46,688
|
|
|
|
12,272
|
|
|
|
(58,960
|
)
|
|
|
61,829
|
|
Loss from Discontinued Operations, net of income tax provision
|
|
|
(2,551
|
)
|
|
|
(628
|
)
|
|
|
(2,929
|
)
|
|
|
3,557
|
|
|
|
(2,551
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
|
59,278
|
|
|
|
46,060
|
|
|
|
9,343
|
|
|
|
(55,403
|
)
|
|
|
59,278
|
|
Add (Subtract): Loss (Earnings) Attributable to Noncontrolling
Interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(376
|
)
|
|
|
(376
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income Attributable to The GEO Group, Inc.
|
|
$
|
59,278
|
|
|
$
|
46,060
|
|
|
$
|
9,343
|
|
|
$
|
(55,779
|
)
|
|
$
|
58,902
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
146
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Year Ended January 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary
|
|
|
Non-Guarantor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The GEO Group Inc.
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Subsidiaries
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
Cash Flow From Operating Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$
|
75,651
|
|
|
$
|
10,922
|
|
|
$
|
39,629
|
|
|
$
|
126,202
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow from Investing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition, cash consideration, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
(260,255
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(260,255
|
)
|
Just Care purchase price adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
Proceeds from sale of property and equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
528
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
528
|
|
Change in restricted cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,432
|
)
|
|
|
(11,432
|
)
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(80,016
|
)
|
|
|
(15,801
|
)
|
|
|
(1,244
|
)
|
|
|
(97,061
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(340,271
|
)
|
|
|
(15,314
|
)
|
|
|
(12,676
|
)
|
|
|
(368,261
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow from Financing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from long-term debt
|
|
|
726,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
726,000
|
|
Payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
(386,285
|
)
|
|
|
(720
|
)
|
|
|
(10,440
|
)
|
|
|
(397,445
|
)
|
Income tax benefit of equity compensation
|
|
|
3,926
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,926
|
|
Debt issuance costs
|
|
|
(8,400
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,400
|
)
|
Payments for purchase of treasury shares
|
|
|
(80,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(80,000
|
)
|
Payments on retirement of common stock
|
|
|
(7,078
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,078
|
)
|
Proceeds from the exercise of stock options
|
|
|
6,695
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,695
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
254,858
|
|
|
|
(720
|
)
|
|
|
(10,440
|
)
|
|
|
243,698
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of Exchange Rate Changes on Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,169
|
|
|
|
4,169
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
(9,762
|
)
|
|
|
(5,112
|
)
|
|
|
20,682
|
|
|
|
5,808
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, beginning of period
|
|
|
12,376
|
|
|
|
5,333
|
|
|
|
16,147
|
|
|
|
33,856
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, end of period
|
|
$
|
2,614
|
|
|
$
|
221
|
|
|
$
|
36,829
|
|
|
$
|
39,664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
147
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Year Ended January 3, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary
|
|
|
Non-Guarantor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The GEO Group Inc.
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Subsidiaries
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
Cash Flow From Operating Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$
|
(5,448
|
)
|
|
$
|
119,792
|
|
|
$
|
16,761
|
|
|
$
|
131,105
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow from Investing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition, cash consideration, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(38,386
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(38,386
|
)
|
Proceeds from sale of property and equipment
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
179
|
|
Dividends from subsidiary
|
|
|
7,400
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,400
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Change in restricted cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,713
|
|
|
|
2,713
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(72,379
|
)
|
|
|
(75,556
|
)
|
|
|
(1,844
|
)
|
|
|
(149,779
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(64,829
|
)
|
|
|
(113,913
|
)
|
|
|
(6,531
|
)
|
|
|
(185,273
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow from Financing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends to noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(176
|
)
|
|
|
(176
|
)
|
Proceeds from long-term debt
|
|
|
333,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
333,000
|
|
Payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
(252,678
|
)
|
|
|
(676
|
)
|
|
|
(14,120
|
)
|
|
|
(267,474
|
)
|
Income tax benefit of equity compensation
|
|
|
601
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
601
|
|
Debt issuance costs
|
|
|
(17,253
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,253
|
)
|
Termination of interest rate swap agreements
|
|
|
1,719
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,719
|
|
Proceeds from the exercise of stock options
|
|
|
1,457
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,457
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
66,846
|
|
|
|
(676
|
)
|
|
|
(14,296
|
)
|
|
|
51,874
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of Exchange Rate Changes on Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,495
|
|
|
|
4,495
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
(3,431
|
)
|
|
|
5,203
|
|
|
|
429
|
|
|
|
2,201
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, beginning of period
|
|
|
15,807
|
|
|
|
130
|
|
|
|
15,718
|
|
|
|
31,655
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, end of period
|
|
$
|
12,376
|
|
|
$
|
5,333
|
|
|
$
|
16,147
|
|
|
$
|
33,856
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 28, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary
|
|
|
Non-Guarantor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The GEO Group Inc.
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Subsidiaries
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
Cash Flow From Operating Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$
|
42,322
|
|
|
$
|
3,374
|
|
|
$
|
25,773
|
|
|
$
|
71,469
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow from Investing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of property and equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,029
|
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
1,136
|
|
Purchase of shares in consolidated affiliate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,189
|
)
|
|
|
(2,189
|
)
|
Dividend from subsidiary
|
|
|
2,676
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,676
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Change in restricted cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
423
|
|
|
|
452
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(123,401
|
)
|
|
|
(3,615
|
)
|
|
|
(3,974
|
)
|
|
|
(130,990
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(120,725
|
)
|
|
|
(2,557
|
)
|
|
|
(8,309
|
)
|
|
|
(131,591
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow from Financing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends to noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(125
|
)
|
|
|
(125
|
)
|
Proceeds from long-term debt
|
|
|
156,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
156,000
|
|
Payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
(85,678
|
)
|
|
|
(822
|
)
|
|
|
(13,656
|
)
|
|
|
(100,156
|
)
|
Income tax benefit of equity compensation
|
|
|
786
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
786
|
|
Debt issuance costs
|
|
|
(3,685
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,685
|
)
|
Proceeds from the exercise of stock options
|
|
|
753
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
753
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
68,176
|
|
|
|
(822
|
)
|
|
|
(13,781
|
)
|
|
|
53,573
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of Exchange Rate Changes on Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,199
|
)
|
|
|
(6,199
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
(10,227
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
(2,516
|
)
|
|
|
(12,748
|
)
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, beginning of period
|
|
|
26,034
|
|
|
|
135
|
|
|
|
18,234
|
|
|
|
44,403
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, end of period
|
|
$
|
15,807
|
|
|
$
|
130
|
|
|
$
|
15,718
|
|
|
$
|
31,655
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
149
|
|
Item 9.
|
Changes
in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
None.
|
|
Item 9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
Disclosure
Controls and Procedures
Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive
Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the
effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as such
term is defined in
Rules 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, referred
to as the Exchange Act), as of the end of the period covered by
this report. On the basis of this review, our management,
including our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial
Officer, has concluded that as of the end of the period covered
by this report, our disclosure controls and procedures were
effective to give reasonable assurance that the information
required to be disclosed in our reports filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, under the
Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported
within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the
SEC, and to ensure that the information required to be disclosed
in the reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is
accumulated and communicated to our management, including our
Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, in a
manner that allows timely decisions regarding required
disclosure.
On August 12, 2010, we acquired Cornell, at which time
Cornell became our subsidiary. See Note 2 to the condensed
consolidated financial statements contained in this Annual
Report for further details of the transaction. We are currently
in the process of assessing and integrating Cornells
internal controls over financial reporting into our financial
reporting systems. Managements assessment of internal
controls over financial reporting at January 2, 2011,
excludes the operations of Cornell as allowed by SEC guidance
related to internal controls of recently acquired entities.
Management will include the operations of Cornell in its
assessment of internal controls over financial reporting within
one year from the date of acquisition.
It should be noted that the effectiveness of our system of
disclosure controls and procedures is subject to certain
limitations inherent in any system of disclosure controls and
procedures, including the exercise of judgment in designing,
implementing and evaluating the controls and procedures, the
assumptions used in identifying the likelihood of future events,
and the inability to eliminate misconduct completely.
Accordingly, there can be no assurance that our disclosure
controls and procedures will detect all errors or fraud. As a
result, by its nature, our system of disclosure controls and
procedures can provide only reasonable assurance regarding
managements control objectives.
Internal
Control Over Financial Reporting
|
|
(a)
|
Managements
Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting
|
See Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplemental Data Managements Report on
Internal Control over Financial Reporting for
managements report on the effectiveness of our internal
control over financial reporting as of January 2, 2011.
|
|
(b)
|
Attestation
Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
See Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplemental Data Report of Independent
Registered
Certified Public Accountants for the report of our
independent registered public accounting firm
on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial
reporting as of January 2, 2011.
|
|
(c)
|
Changes
in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
|
Our management is responsible for reporting any changes in our
internal control over financial reporting (as such terms is
defined in
Rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f)
under the Exchange Act) during the period to which this report
relates that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely
to materially affect, our internal control over financial
reporting. Management believes that there have not been any
changes in our internal
150
control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in
Rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f)
under the Exchange Act) during the period to which this report
relates that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely
to materially affect, our internal control over financial
reporting.
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
Effective March 1, 2011, we amended the following executive
employment agreements with our named executive officers, as
determined as of the end of fiscal year 2009 and reflected in
our proxy statement for the 2010 annual meeting of shareholders
filed on March 24, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement,
effective December 31, 2008, by and between GEO and George
C. Zoley;
|
|
|
|
Senior Officer Employment Agreement, effective August 3,
2009, by and between GEO and Brian R. Evans;
|
|
|
|
Senior Officer Employment Agreement, dated March 23, 2005,
by and between GEO and John M. Hurley; and
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Senior Officer Employment Agreement,
effective December 31, 2008, by and between GEO and John J.
Bulfin.
|
We amended the above executive employment agreements to reflect
the new 2011 annual base salaries approved by the Compensation
Committee for Messrs. Zoley, Evans, Hurley and Bulfin of
$1,145,000, $500,000, $500,000 and $435,000, respectively.
Additionally, we amended the above executive employment
agreements to add a provision that all outstanding unvested
stock options and restricted stock granted to each of
Messrs. Zoley, Evans, Hurley and Bulfin fully vest
immediately upon a termination without cause as such
term is defined in each of their employment agreements, as
approved by the Compensation Committee.
The foregoing description of the amendments to each of the
executive employment agreements does not purport to be complete
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text
of the amendments, copies of which are filed herewith as
Exhibits 10.33, 10.34, 10.35 and 10.36, respectively, and
are incorporated herein by reference.
PART III
Items 10,
11, 12, 13 and 14
The information required by Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of
Form 10-K
will be contained in, and is incorporated by reference from, the
proxy statement for our 2011 annual meeting of shareholders,
which will be filed with the SEC pursuant to Regulation 14A
within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by
this report.
PART IV
|
|
Item 15.
|
Exhibits
and Financial Statement Schedules
|
(a)(1) Financial Statements.
The consolidated financial statements of GEO are filed under
Item 8 of Part II of this report.
(2) Financial Statement Schedules.
Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying
Accounts Page 154
All other schedules specified in the accounting regulations of
the Securities and Exchange Commission have been omitted because
they are either inapplicable or not required.
151
(3) Exhibits Required by Item 601 of
Regulation S-K.
The following exhibits are filed as part of this Annual
Report:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
2
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 19,
2006, among the Company, GEO Acquisition II, Inc. and CentraCore
Properties Trust (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 2.1 of the Companys report on
Form 8-K,
filed on September 21, 2006)
|
|
2
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 28, 2009
by and among Just Care, Inc., GEO Care, Inc. and GEO Care
Acquisition, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1
of the Companys report on
Form 8-K,
filed on September 3, 2009)
|
|
2
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 18, 2010,
by and among The GEO Group, Inc., GEO Acquisition III, Inc. and
Cornell Companies, Inc. (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 2.1 of the Companys report on
Form 8-K,
filed on April 20, 2010)
|
|
2
|
.3A
|
|
|
|
Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
July 22, 2010, by and among The GEO Group, Inc., GEO
Acquisition III, Inc. and Cornell Companies, Inc. (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 2.1A of the Companys
report on
Form 8-K,
filed on July 22, 2010).
|
|
2
|
.4
|
|
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 21,
2010, by and among The GEO Group, Inc., GEO Acquisition IV,
Inc., BII Holding Corporation, BII Investors IF LP, in its
capacity as the stockholders representative, and AEA
Investors 2006 Fund L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 2.1 to the Companys report on
Form 8-K,
filed on December 28, 2010)
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Company,
dated May 16, 1994 (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 3.1 to the Companys registration statement on
Form S-1,
filed on May 24, 1994)
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation, dated October 30, 2003 (incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Companys report on
Form 10-K,
filed on February 15, 2008)
|
|
3
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation, dated November 25, 2003 (incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 3.3 to the Companys report on
Form 10-K,
filed on February 15, 2008)
|
|
3
|
.4
|
|
|
|
Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation, dated September 29, 2006 (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 3.4 to the Companys
report on
Form 10-K,
filed on February 15, 2008)
|
|
3
|
.5
|
|
|
|
Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation, dated May 30, 2007 (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 3.5 to the Companys report on
Form 10-K,
filed on February 15, 2008)
|
|
3
|
.6
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Company (incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Companys report on
Form 8-K,
filed on April 2, 2008)
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Rights Agreement, dated as of October 9, 2003, between the
Company and EquiServe Trust Company, N.A., as the Rights
Agent (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to
the Companys report on
Form 8-K,
filed on July 29, 2003)
|
|
4
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated as of October 20, 2009 among the Company,
the Guarantors party thereto and Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, as Trustee, relating to
73/4% Senior
Notes Due 2017 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to
the Companys report on
Form 8-K,
filed on October 20, 2009)
|
|
4
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Indenture, dated as of February 10, 2011, by and among the
Company, the Guarantors party thereto, and Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association as Trustee relating to the
65/8% Senior
Notes due 2021 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to
the Companys report on
Form 8-K,
filed on February 16, 2011)
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Stock Option Plan (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys registration statement
on
Form S-1,
filed on May 24, 1994)
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
|
|
1994 Stock Option Plan (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 10.2 to the Companys registration statement
on
Form S-1,
filed on May 24, 1994)
|
152
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement between the Company and its
Officers and Directors (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 10.3 to the Companys registration statement
on
Form S-1,
filed on May 24, 1994)
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
|
|
Senior Officer Retirement Plan (incorporated herein by reference
to Exhibit 10.4 to the Companys registration
statement on
Form S-1/A,
filed on December 22, 1995)
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
|
|
Amendment to the Companys Senior Officer Retirement Plan
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the
Companys report on
Form 10-K,
filed on March 23, 2005)
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
|
|
1999 Stock Option Plan (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 10.12 to the Companys report on
Form 10-K,
filed on March 30, 2000)
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
|
|
Executive Retirement Agreement, dated March 7, 2002,
between the Company and Dr. George C. Zoley (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 10.18 to the Companys
report on
Form 10-Q,
filed on May 15, 2002)
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
|
|
Executive Retirement Agreement, dated March 7, 2002,
between the Company and Wayne H. Calabrese (incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 10.19 to the Companys report
on
Form 10-Q,
filed on May 15, 2002)
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
|
|
Amended Executive Retirement Agreement, dated January 17,
2003, by and between the Company and George C. Zoley
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.18 to the
Companys report on
Form 10-K,
filed on March 20, 2003)
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
|
|
Amended Executive Retirement Agreement, dated January 17,
2003, by and between the Company and Wayne H. Calabrese
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.19 to the
Companys report on
Form 10-K,
filed on March 20, 2003)
|
|
10
|
.11
|
|
|
|
Senior Officer Employment Agreement, dated March 23, 2005,
by and between the Company and John M. Hurley (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 10.24 to the Companys
report on
Form 10-K,
filed on March 23, 2005)
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
|
|
Office Lease, dated September 12, 2002, by and between the
Company and Canpro Investments Ltd. (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.22 to the Companys report on
Form 10-K,
filed on March 20, 2003)
|
|
10
|
.13
|
|
|
|
The Geo Group, Inc. Senior Management Performance Award
Plan.*
|
|
10
|
.14
|
|
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement,
effective December 31, 2008, by and between The GEO Group,
Inc. and George C. Zoley (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys report on
Form 8-K
January 7, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.15
|
|
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement,
effective December 31, 2008, by and between The GEO Group,
Inc. and Wayne H. Calabrese (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.2 to the Companys report on
Form 8-K
January 7, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.16
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Senior Officer Employment Agreement,
effective December 31, 2008, by and between The GEO Group,
Inc. and John J. Bulfin (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.4 to the Companys report on
Form 8-K
January 7, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.17
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated The GEO Group, Inc. Senior Officer
Retirement Plan, effective December 31, 2008 (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to the Companys report
on
Form 8-K
January 7, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.18
|
|
|
|
Senior Officer Employment Agreement, dated August 3, 2009,
by and between the Company and Brian Evans (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys report on
Form 10-Q,
filed on August 3, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.19
|
|
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement dated as of October 20, 2009
by and among the Company, the Guarantors party thereto and Banc
of America Securities LLC, on behalf of itself and the other
Initial Purchasers party thereto (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys report on
Form 8-K,
filed on October 20, 2009)
|
|
10
|
.20
|
|
|
|
Credit Agreement dated as of August 4, 2010 between the
Company, as Borrower, certain of GEOs subsidiaries, as
Grantors and BNP Paribas, as Lender and as Administrative Agent
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.44 to the
Companys report on
Form 8-K/A,
filed on December 27, 2010)
|
153
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.21
|
|
|
|
Voting Agreement, dated as of April 18, 2010, by and among
The Company, Inc. and certain stockholders of Cornell Companies,
Inc. named therein (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.43 to the Companys report on
Form 8-K,
filed on April 20, 2010)
|
|
10
|
.22
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated The GEO Group, Inc. 2006 Stock Incentive
Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.45 to the
Companys Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File
No. 333-169198)).
|
|
10
|
.23
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated The GEO Group,
Inc. 2006 Stock Incentive Plan.*
|
|
10
|
.24
|
|
|
|
Voting Agreement, dated as of December 21, 2010, by and
among the Company, Inc., GEO Acquisition IV, Inc. and certain
stockholders of BII Holding Corporation (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.47 to the Companys report on
Form 8-K,
filed on December 28, 2010)
|
|
10
|
.25
|
|
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of February 10,
2011, by and among the Company, the Guarantors party thereto,
and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc.,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and SunTrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc. as representatives of the Initial Purchasers (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys report
on
Form 8-K,
filed on February 16, 2011).
|
|
10
|
.26
|
|
|
|
Cornell Companies, Inc. Amended and Restated 2006 Incentive Plan
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.46 to the
Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-8
(File
No. 333-169199),
filed on September 3, 2010).
|
|
10
|
.27
|
|
|
|
First Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Executive
Employment Agreement, effective March 1, 2011, by and
between the Company and George C. Zoley*
|
|
10
|
.28
|
|
|
|
First Amendment to Senior Officer Employment Agreement,
effective March 1, 2011, by and between the Company and
Brian R. Evans*
|
|
10
|
.29
|
|
|
|
First Amendment to Senior Officer Employment Agreement,
effective March 1, 2011, by and between the Company and
John M. Hurley*
|
|
10
|
.30
|
|
|
|
First Amendment to Amended and Restated Senior Officer
Employment Agreement, effective March 1, 2011, by and
between the Company and John J. Bulfin*
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Company*
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Consent of Grant Thornton LLP, Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm*
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Rule 13a-14(a)
Certification in accordance with Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.*
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Rule 13a-14(a)
Certification in accordance with Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.*
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002.*
|
|
32
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002.*
|
|
101
|
.INS
|
|
|
|
XBRL Instance Document
|
|
101
|
.SCH
|
|
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema
|
|
101
|
.CAL
|
|
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase
|
|
101
|
.DEF
|
|
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase
|
|
101
|
.LAB
|
|
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase
|
|
101
|
.PRE
|
|
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Filed herewith. |
|
|
|
Management contract or compensatory plan, contract or agreement
as defined in Item 402 (a)(3) of
Regulation S-K. |
154
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
THE GEO GROUP, INC.
Brian R. Evans
Senior Vice President &
Chief Financial Officer
Date: March 2, 2011
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the Company and in the capacities and on the dates
indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ GEORGE
C. ZOLEY
George
C. Zoley
|
|
Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
|
|
March 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ BRIAN
R. EVANS
Brian
R. Evans
|
|
Senior Vice President &
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
|
|
March 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ RONALD
A. BRACK
Ronald
A. Brack
|
|
Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer
and Controller
(principal accounting officer)
|
|
March 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ CLARENCE
E. ANTHONY
Clarence
E. Anthony
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ NORMAN
A. CARLSON
Norman
A. Carlson
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ ANNE
N. FOREMAN
Anne
N. Foreman
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ RICHARD
H. GLANTON
Richard
H. Glanton
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ CHRISTOPHER
C. WHEELER
Christopher
C. Wheeler
|
|
Director
|
|
March 2, 2011
|
156
Schedule
THE GEO
GROUP, INC.
SCHEDULE II
VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended January 2,
2011, January 3, 2010, and December 28, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
Charged to
|
|
Charged
|
|
Deductions,
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
Beginning
|
|
Cost and
|
|
to Other
|
|
Actual
|
|
End of
|
Description
|
|
of Period
|
|
Expenses
|
|
Accounts
|
|
Charge-Offs
|
|
Period
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
YEAR ENDED JANUARY 2, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
429
|
|
|
$
|
932
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(53
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,308
|
|
YEAR ENDED JANUARY 3, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
625
|
|
|
$
|
485
|
|
|
$
|
(346
|
)
|
|
$
|
(335
|
)
|
|
$
|
429
|
|
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 28, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
445
|
|
|
$
|
602
|
|
|
$
|
(302
|
)
|
|
$
|
(120
|
)
|
|
$
|
625
|
|
YEAR ENDED JANUARY 2, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Replacement Reserve
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
YEAR ENDED JANUARY 3, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Replacement Reserve
|
|
$
|
623
|
|
|
$
|
(613
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(10
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 28, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Replacement Reserve
|
|
$
|
885
|
|
|
$
|
54
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(316
|
)
|
|
$
|
623
|
|
157