<PAGE> 1
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): December 15, 2000
CORRPRO COMPANIES, INC.
------------------------------------------------------
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
OHIO 1-12282 34-1422570
---- ------- ----------
(State or other jurisdiction (Commission File Number) (IRS Employer
of incorporation) Identification Number)
1090 ENTERPRISE DRIVE, MEDINA, OHIO 44256
----------------------------------- -----
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
REGISTRANT'S TELEPHONE NUMBER, INCLUDING AREA CODE: (330) 723-5082
------------------------------------------------------------------
NOT APPLICABLE
-------------------------------------------------------------
(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)
<PAGE> 2
ITEM 5. OTHER EVENTS.
As previously disclosed in the Company's periodic reports, the Company filed a
complaint in the Circuit Court for the County of Ingham, Michigan ("Ingham
Circuit Court") and appealed a January 2000 Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality ("MDEQ") administrative decision which could have the effect of
modifying MDEQ's 1995 approval of certain assessment methodologies utilized by
the Company in determining whether certain underground storage tanks met
Michigan's regulatory requirements for upgrade by means of cathodic protection.
These assessment methodologies had been and remain recognized by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the other states in which the
Company utilized such methodologies for virtually identical purposes. The
Company believes that MDEQ's decision is in error and on January 24, 2000 filed
a complaint and claim of appeal in the Ingham Circuit Court seeking declaratory
relief and appealing the decision on several grounds. A hearing on the appeal
was held on November 1, 2000.
On November 14, 2000, the Ingham Circuit Court entered an order reversing MDEQ's
administrative decision that directed the Company take certain actions. The
circuit court also found that MDEQ did not approve of the full use of the
assessment methodologies utilized by the Company in Michigan. The Company
believes that such finding is not supported by any evidence contained in the
administrative record. Further, the Company believes that such finding is
contradicted by evidence contained in the administrative record that the circuit
court failed to consider. On December 5, 2000, the Company filed in the Michigan
Court of Appeals an application for leave to appeal the circuit court's finding
that MDEQ did not approve the full use of the assessment methodologies utilized
by the Company in Michigan. A decision on the application for leave to appeal is
pending.
In an unrelated matter, the Company has discovered that a former employee used
an incorrect assessment standard in connection with the evaluation of whether
certain underground storage tanks located at as many as 67 sites were eligible
for upgrade using cathodic protection. Such evaluations were done using one of
the approved assessment methodologies. The tanks at these sites, which are
located in five states, were subsequently upgraded using cathodic protection
which arrests corrosion. These tanks are also subject to ongoing leak detection
requirements. Based on the Company's review of available governmental records,
the Company believes that there have not been any releases from the affected
tanks as a result of the actions of the former employee. The Company has
contacted and met with officials from the five states as well as officials from
the EPA to discuss this matter. It is the Company's understanding that none of
the states or the EPA intend to take any enforcement action as a result of the
use of the inaccurate standard by the former employee. The Company is currently
working with the states and the EPA to develop a field investigation program to
assess the current status of the affected sites. Based on currently available
information, the Company does not believe that the cost of the field
investigation program will have a material effect on the future operations,
financial position or cash flows of the Company.
<PAGE> 3
This document contains certain statements, including those relating to the
expected cost and effect of the field investigation program, that constitute
"forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Reform
Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks,
uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance
or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future
results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such
forward-looking statements. Factors which might affect such forward-looking
statements include the outcome of the appeal process in Michigan, including the
decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals on the Company's application for leave
to appeal, the actual results of the field investigation program, and the
cooperation of state regulators, the EPA and the owner/operators of the affected
tanks. Additional factors that may affect the Company's business and performance
are set forth in the Company's fiscal year 2000 Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
<PAGE> 4
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
CORRPRO COMPANIES, INC.
(Registrant)
Date: December 15, 2000 By: Neal R. Restivo
--------------------------
Name: Neal R. Restivo
Title: Executive Vice President
Chief Financial Officer
