Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

FOR ANNUAL AND TRANSITION REPORTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

(Mark One)

x   ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended April 30, 2011

Or

o    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from               to               

Commission file number 000-23211

CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (802) 775-0325

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o  No x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes o  No x

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 o  No o

Indicate by checkmark 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 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 x  No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s 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. x

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):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o  No x

The aggregate market value of the common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the last reported sale price of the registrant’s Class A common stock on the NASDAQ Stock Market at the close of business on October 31, 2010 was $124,160,862.  The Company does not have any non-voting common stock outstanding.

There were 25,732,717 shares of Class A common stock, $.01 par value per share, of the registrant outstanding as of May 31, 2011. There were 988,200 shares of Class B common stock, $.01 par value per share, of the registrant outstanding as of May 31, 2011.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III (except for information required with respect to executive officers of the Company, which is set forth under Part I—Business—“Executive Officers and Other Key Employees of the Company” and with respect to certain equity compensation plan information which is set forth under Part III—“Equity Compensation Plan Information”) have been omitted from this Annual Report on Form 10-K because the Company expects to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, not later than 120 days after the close of its fiscal year, a definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A. The information required by Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III of this report, which will appear in the definitive proxy statement, is incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

Table of Contents

PART I

Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains or incorporates a number of forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), including statements regarding:

·                  expected future revenues, operations, expenditures and cash needs;

·                  fluctuations in the commodity pricing of our recyclables, increases in landfill tipping fees and fuel costs and general economic and weather conditions;

·                  projected future obligations related to capping, closure and post-closure costs of our existing landfills and any disposal facilities which we may own or operate in the future;

·                  expected liquidity and financing plans;

·                  our ability to use our net operating losses and tax positions;

·                  the projected development of additional disposal capacity or expectations regarding permits of existing capacity;

·                  the recoverability or impairment of any of our assets or goodwill;

·                  estimates of the potential markets for our products and services, including the anticipated drivers for future growth;

·                  sales and marketing plans or price and volume assumptions;

·                  the outcome of any legal or regulatory matter;

·                  potential business combinations or divestitures; and

·                  projected improvements to our infrastructure and impact of such improvements on our business and operations.

In addition, any statements contained in or incorporated by reference into this report that are not statements of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements. You can identify these forward-looking statements by the use of the words “believes”, “expects”, “anticipates”, “plans”, “may”, “will”, “would”, “intends”, “estimates” and other similar expressions, whether in the negative or affirmative. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about the industry and markets in which we operate as well as management’s beliefs and assumptions, and should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Financial Statements and notes thereto. We cannot guarantee that we actually will achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements made. The occurrence of the events described and the achievement of the expected results depends on many events, some or all of which are not predictable or within our control. Actual results may differ materially from those set forth in forward-looking statements.

There are a number of important risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, without limitation, those detailed in Item 1A, “Risk Factors” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We explicitly disclaim any obligation to update any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as otherwise required by law.

ITEM 1.  BUSINESS

Overview

Casella Waste Systems, Inc. is a vertically-integrated solid waste, recycling, and resource management services company. We provide resource management expertise and services to residential, commercial, municipal, and industrial customers, primarily in the areas of solid waste collection, transfer, disposal, recycling, and organics services. We operate in Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, Maine, and Pennsylvania.

As of May 31, 2011, we owned and/or operated 31 solid waste collection operations, 29 transfer stations, 17 recycling facilities, nine Subtitle D landfills, three landfill gas to energy facilities, one landfill permitted to accept construction and demolition materials, and one waste-to-energy facility. In addition, we hold a 50% interest in US Green Fiber, LLC (“GreenFiber”), a joint venture that

2

Table of Contents

manufactures, markets and sells cellulose insulation made from recycled fiber. We also hold a 8.2% interest in RecycleRewards, Inc. (“RecycleRewards”), a company that markets an incentive based recycling service, and a 19.9% interest in Evergreen National Indemnity Company (“Evergreen”), a surety company which provides surety bonds to secure contractual performance for municipal solid waste collection contracts and landfill closure and post-closure obligations.

We manage our solid waste operations on a geographic basis through regional operating segments, each of which include a full range of solid waste services. During the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011, we consolidated the Central and Western regions into a single segment as the Western region. Furthermore, the four remaining Material Recovery Facilities (“MRFs”) that were previously included in the FCR Recycling operating segment, along with the two MRFs from the Central region and our commodity brokerage operations, were brought together to form our newly created Recycling operating segment.  Ancillary operations, major customer accounts, discontinued operations and earnings from equity method investees are included in our “Other” reportable segment.

Strategy

Our vision is to build a sustainable and profitable company by transforming traditional solid waste streams into renewable resources. We believe that global competition for limited resources is creating significant business opportunities for companies that can sustain and extract value—in the form of energy and raw materials—from resources previously considered an irretrievable waste stream. Since the opening of our first recycling facility in Vermont in 1977, our business strategy has been firmly tied to creating a sustainable resource management model and we continue to be rooted in these same tenets today. We strive to create long-term value for all stakeholders, which include customers, employees, communities, and shareholders, by helping them manage their resources in a sustainable and financially sound manner.

Our long-term strategy is to create economically beneficial uses for waste streams through resource transformation solutions.  We continue to make great progress against this goal with programs such as Zero-Sort Recycling®, which makes recycling easier for our customers and drives higher recycling rates, and organic solutions, which creates saleable compost or clean energy from traditional organic waste streams, and our landfill gas-to-energy facilities, which create clean energy from landfill methane gases.

Over the past year, our key goals were to improve cash flows and reduce leverage by driving profitable revenue growth, further enhancing operating efficiencies, concentrating capital spending on maintaining the existing asset base, selectively divesting non-core assets, and opportunistically accessing the capital markets to refinance existing borrowings.  We made significant progress against these goals during fiscal year 2011, by selling our non-integrated FCR recycling assets located outside of our core operating regions of New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and northern Pennsylvania and refinancing our senior secured first lien credit facility (the “2009 Senior Secured Credit Facility”) and 9.75% senior subordinated notes due February 2013 (the “Senior Subordinated Notes”).

In March 2011, we completed the sale of our non-integrated recycling assets and certain intellectual assets for $134.2 million in gross proceeds.  This sale, combined with several smaller asset sales during the fiscal year, yielded gross proceeds to us of approximately $147.0 million.  The assets were sold at attractive valuations and we used one hundred percent of the net proceeds to repay debt, including the complete retirement of our senior secured term B loan due April 2014 (the “2009 Term Loan”). This debt repayment far exceeded the debt reduction goal of $75.0 million we established in December of 2009.

Through the sale of these assets we strengthened our balance sheet, improved our risk profile, simplified our business structure, and, most importantly, maintained a strong set of integrated solid waste, recycling, and resource management assets across the Northeast.  While we plan to opportunistically pursue additional selective divestitures of non-core assets to further strengthen our credit profile, we believe that certain markets must improve for us to yield attractive valuations for any such sales.

In early February 2011, we successfully completed the refinancing of our Senior Subordinated Notes with new $200.0 million 7.75% senior subordinated notes due 2019 (the “2019 Notes”).  With the refinancing, we reduced our interest expense by 200 basis points and extended the maturity out 8 years.  In mid March 2011, we amended and restated our senior secured revolving credit facility (the “2009 Revolver”) that was a part of our amended and restated 2009 Senior Secured Credit Facility, extending the maturity date out 5 years, reducing the interest rate by 50 basis points, increasing the facility size by $50.0 million, and adding an accordion feature which allows us at our discretion to add up to $182.5 million to the facility, subject to lender participation.  The amended and restated senior secured credit facility (the “2011 Revolver”) is intended to provide us the flexibility to call our most expensive debt, which is our 11% senior second lien notes due 2014 (the “Second Lien Notes”), with senior secured borrowing when the Second Lien Notes first become callable in July 2012.

Looking forward to fiscal year 2012, our strategy will remain similar to last year’s, with a focus on improving performance of base operations and increasing cash flow generation through: (1) profitable revenue growth and pricing initiatives; (2) cost controls and operating efficiencies; (3) landfill development initiatives; and (4) asset management.

3

Table of Contents

Profitable revenue growth and pricing initiatives

In fiscal year 2011, we continued to reorganize the solid waste sales organization by moving revenue generation and sales force reporting responsibility to the regional and divisional management teams, implementing customer profitability analytical tools, and realigning the sales incentive compensation programs.

By placing revenue generation and customer responsibility with local teams, we believe that each team will be able to more quickly react to local conditions, cross-sell customers with differentiated resource transformation solutions (e.g., Zero-Sort Recycling® and organics offerings), help to steward local marketing programs and retain more existing business.  The shared services model discussed below has helped to create additional margin for these managers, so they can focus more of their time on revenue generation.

During the past year, our team developed and implemented a comprehensive customer profitability tool that allows our pricing team, division managers, and sales force to calculate the profitability of all of our collection customers.  This tool, combined with our knowledge of local markets, has enabled our team to begin addressing customer pricing at a granular level, implementing larger price increases for customers who do not meet our return metrics and smaller price increases on higher margin customers to cover increased cost inflation.

To drive implementation of the pricing programs, we changed the sales incentive compensation structure in late fiscal year 2011.  Commissions are now directly tied to the profitability of each sales person’s book of business. By making this change, we incentivize our sales people to price customers appropriately, to work to retain existing high margin customers, and to work with operating teams to drive down costs.

We recently rolled our fuel and oil recovery fee into our base pricing for our collection customer base.  The recovery fee was reset to zero and began floating on any future increases to fuel and oil.  This billing change helps our customers to better understand the true cost of their service, as the fuel and oil recovery fee had grown significantly over the past seven years since it was first adopted.

With the implementation of these changes in fiscal year 2011, we believe we are now well positioned to meet our goal to achieve core pricing increases of 50 basis points above the consumer price index across the board.

Landfill sales and major accounts sales continue to be managed centrally in order to optimize cross-selling and internalization benefits.  Over the past two years, we have increased our sales efforts in the major accounts business.  While the major accounts business negatively impacts overall company margins, this business generates positive free cash flow because it requires little to no direct capital investment.  This business is focused on winning new contracts that can be serviced, either directly by us, or through a contracted third party.

The Recycling operating segment derives revenue from a combination of commodity sales and tipping fees paid for material processing.  Fluctuations in commodity pricing are managed by a number of risk mitigation strategies including: financial hedging instruments, floor prices, forward sales contracts, index purchases, floating customer revenue shares and tipping fees. Our goal is to offset the variability in commodity revenues with tipping fees to maintain stable cash flows and returns across a spectrum of commodity pricing.  This is achieved by sharing commodity revenues with municipal partners and lowering tipping fees in high commodity price environments, while lowering commodity revenue shares and increasing tipping fees in lower priced environments.

Cost controls and operating efficiencies

As part of an ongoing effort, we continue to identify and implement best practices throughout the entire organization and then seek to implement these solutions through standardized continuous improvement programs. The goals of these programs are to enhance customer service, increase safety for employees and reduce operating and administrative costs. We have implemented continuous improvement programs in safety, productivity, maintenance, environmental compliance, procurement, customer care and back-office functions.

In fiscal year 2011, we expanded our successful cost control efforts from the previous year, with a focus on improving fleet routing efficiencies and on customer care and reducing back-office costs through the new shared services center.  In fiscal year 2012, we will continue to focus on the same areas and continue implementation of fleet efficiency programs and the shared service center.

The fleet efficiency programs focus on dynamic fleet routing, on-board computers, front-load conversions, container upsizing, long-haul optimization, and driver incentive pay with the purpose of reducing labor costs and operating hours.  In fiscal year 2011, we introduced on-board computer technology to roughly 50% of our locations and we plan to roll out the system to our remaining sites in fiscal year 2012.  The on-board computer systems help us to dynamically route our trucks to continuously improve route structure, while automatically providing critical service time and weight data for our customer profitability analytics.  One of the most successful operating programs in the last year was the introduction of driver incentive pay, which has allowed our drivers to help improve our customer service, reduce operating time, and earn incentives.

4

Table of Contents

We launched a new shared services center in late fiscal year 2010, with the goals of improving customer care, simplifying customer interactions, improving our sales performance on standardized products such as roll-off, implementing new streamlined IT tools, consolidating decentralized functions into one center, and reducing costs.  The initial focus on the shared services model was to centralize customer care and improve the service level to our customers.  By the end of fiscal year 2011 we had integrated over 90% of our divisions into the customer care center and had substantially achieved the performance goals that we set for the center.  The introduction of new IT tools into the center has also allowed us to begin tracking the success of our marketing efforts, allowing us to more effectively target programs and customers.

In fiscal year 2011, we began the second phase of the shared services center transition by consolidating all of our cash application functions into the center and introducing the necessary systems and technologies to automate the majority of our customer payments.  In fiscal year 2012, our focus will be to consolidate additional back office functions into the center.  Our performance goals will mirror those from the successful customer care integration, with the most important goals being to, first, improve customer service, and, second, reduce overhead costs.

Landfill Development Initiative

In 2003, we set an ambitious goal to add disposal capacity to the solid waste franchise both to strengthen market position and to create a sustainable long-term foundation for the business.

We have made great strides in executing the landfill development growth strategy by adding significant total and annual permitted disposal capacity within our solid waste footprint, primarily through operating contracts for publicly-owned landfills. Total and annual disposal capacity additions resulted from: (1) the addition of five landfills (Southbridge landfill in Massachusetts, Ontario County landfill in New York, Juniper Ridge landfill in Maine, Chemung County landfill in New York, and, most recently, McKean County landfill in Pennsylvania); and (2) permit expansions at existing landfills.

In fiscal year 2011, we acquired the McKean County, Pennsylvania landfill out of bankruptcy proceedings.  This landfill adds important capacity to our Western region and will allow us to better balance annual tonnages against landfill permit levels.

Since April 30, 2003, we have added 91.3 million tons of permitted and permittable total landfill capacity to the solid waste business, bringing the total landfill capacity to 120.9 million tons as of April 30, 2011.  During this same period, we also added 1.9 million tons of annual disposal capacity, bringing the total to 3.3 million tons as of April 30, 2011.

With this disposal capacity, our strategic emphasis is on increasing free cash flow and generating an enhanced return on invested capital at the landfill sites. Going forward, we are seeking to finalize regulatory approval for the Southbridge and Chemung permit modifications to increase annual permitted capacity and optimize flows of waste across the northeast to obtain better integration and asset profitability.

Asset Management

Our deployment of capital has evolved with our business strategy over the past five years from an emphasis on growth investments, primarily in long-term landfill capacity, to an approach that focuses on free cash flow generation from base operations with limited investments in high return resource transformation solutions.

From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2007, we invested approximately $177.5 million of capital to acquire and develop strategically located landfill capacity. Capital spending was elevated during this period as we built-out 25 to 30-year infrastructure and met contractual obligations associated with operating leases at certain of the landfill facilities. The heightened growth capital investment for existing landfill development projects was largely completed by the end of fiscal year 2007 when the focus shifted to extracting appropriate returns from the invested capital. The landfill capacity added to the business is the foundation of today’s integrated solid waste strategy, and these sites will serve as a platform for emerging resource transformation programs into the future.

We shifted our capital strategy over the past several years to focus in three main areas: (1) improving the mix of base operations through divestitures, swaps, or acquisitions; (2) implementing operating programs that improve capital efficiency and asset utilization; and (3) pursuing select strategic investment opportunities in waste transformation and resource optimization.  We remain focused on these three goals in fiscal year 2012.

After the divestiture of our non-integrated recycling assets and select intellectual property assets in fiscal year 2011, we remain committed to further exploring accretive divestiture opportunities.  However, current market conditions make it unlikely that we will sell any additional non-core assets in the near term.  We expect to more actively consider acquisition opportunities over the next several years to improve route densities and internalize additional tonnages, and improve operating and overhead leverage.

5

Table of Contents

Over the past several years, we have selectively invested growth capital in high-return opportunities that enhance our ability to support emerging customer and market needs in waste transformation and resource optimization. The investment strategy seeks to leverage core competencies in materials processing, organics, and clean energy to create additional value from the waste stream. We believe that these investments, in Zero-Sort Recycling®, organic waste solutions, and landfill gas-to-energy facilities, position us well for the evolution of the industry from waste management to resource management.

We now have landfill gas-to-energy facilities at five of our landfills, with three owned and operated by us and two owned and operated by partners.  Over the next several years we plan to further develop this line of business, and we expect to have additional landfill gas-to-energy facilities operating at the Southbridge landfill in fiscal year 2012 and at the North Country landfill in fiscal year 2013.  These sites are important to our long-term strategy because beyond producing clean energy, they are integral to our model to create a low-emission landfill, whereby landfill methane emissions are virtually eliminated and fossil fuels are displaced with a clean energy source.

As a key initiative to improve existing asset utilization and to advance our resource transformation strategy, we plan to convert one additional facility to Zero-Sort Recycling® during fiscal year 2012.  We branded our recycling process to differentiate the high quality end-use commodities produced as the result of our innovative approach.  With Zero-Sort Recycling®, a customer can commingle all of his or her recyclables (paper, cardboard, plastics, metals, and glass) into a right sized residential container or commercial dumpster.  By making it easier for a customer to recycle, we increase recycling participation and yields, thereby increasing volumes through the Zero-Sort Recycling® facilities and increasing asset utilization.

Our New England Organics team has been working to develop and/or partner with firms that have developed innovative approaches to deriving incremental value from the organic portion of the waste stream.  We recently introduced our Earthlife® soils products into the retail market, and we continue to offer a full array of recycled organic fertilizers, composts, and mulches that help our customers close the loop with organic waste streams.  We have also recently partnered with AGreen, an innovative firm that is building small anaerobic digesters in the Northeast to generate electricity from farm and food waste streams.

Solid Waste Operations

Our solid waste operations comprise a full range of non-hazardous solid waste services, including collections, transfer stations, MRFs and disposal facilities.

Collections.  A majority of our commercial and industrial collection services are performed under one to three-year service agreements, with prices and fees determined by such factors as collection frequency, type of equipment and containers furnished, type, volume and weight of solid waste collected, distance to the disposal or processing facility and cost of disposal or processing. Our residential collection and disposal services are performed either on a subscription basis (e.g., with no underlying contract) with individuals, or through contracts with municipalities, homeowner associations, apartment building owners or mobile home park operators.

Transfer Stations.  Our transfer stations receive, compact and transfer solid waste collected primarily by various collection operations, for transport to disposal facilities by larger vehicles. We believe that transfer stations benefit us by: (1) increasing the size of the wastesheds which have access to our landfills; (2) reducing costs by improving utilization of collection personnel and equipment; and (3) helping us build relationships with municipalities and other customers by providing a local physical presence and enhanced local service capabilities.

Material Recovery Facilities.  Our MRFs, receive, sort, bale and resell recyclable materials originating from the municipal solid waste stream, including newsprint, cardboard, office paper, containers and bottles. We operate six MRFs in geographic areas served by our collection divisions. Revenues are received from municipalities and customers in the form of processing fees, tipping fees and commodity sales. These MRFs, two in Vermont, two in Massachusetts and two in New York, are large-scale, high-volume facilities that process over 0.4 million tons per year of recycled materials delivered to them by municipalities and commercial customers under long-term contracts. We also operate MRFs as an integral part of our core solid waste operations, which generally process recyclables collected from our various residential collection operations.

Disposal Facilities.  We dispose of solid waste at our landfills and at our waste-to-energy facility.

Landfills.  The following table (in thousands) reflects landfill capacity and airspace changes, as measured in tons, as of April 30, 2011, 2010 and 2009, for landfills we operated during the years then ended:

6

Table of Contents

(1)                                  We convert estimated remaining permitted capacity and estimated additional permittable capacity from cubic yards to tons generally by assuming a compaction factor equal to the historic average compaction factor applicable to the respective landfill over the last three fiscal years. In addition to a total capacity limit, certain permits may place a daily and/or annual limit on capacity.

(2)                                  Represents capacity which we have determined to be “permittable” in accordance with the following criteria: (i) we control the land on which the expansion is sought; (ii) all technical siting criteria have been met or a variance has been obtained or is reasonably expected to be obtained; (iii) we have not identified any legal or political impediments which we believe will not be resolved in our favor; (iv) we are actively working on obtaining any necessary permits and we expect that all required permits will be received; and (v) senior management has approved the project.

(3)                                  The increase in fiscal year 2009 was due to a determination of additional permittable airspace capacity at our Southbridge and Clinton County landfills. The increase in fiscal year 2010 is associated with expansions at Hyland and Chemung landfills, partially offset by a reduction of expansions pursued at the Ontario landfill site.  In fiscal year 2011, the increase is partially attributable to new expansions pursued at our Waste USA and NCES landfill sites.

(4)                                  The increase in permitted airspace capacity in fiscal year 2009 was the result of permits received at our Clinton County landfill facility. The increase in permitted airspace capacity in fiscal year 2011 was the result of permits received at our NCES landfill facility.

(5)                                  The increase in airspace capacity in fiscal year 2009 was the result of improved airspace utilization and compaction at the Western and Eastern region landfills. Most notably, the Juniper Ridge site in the Eastern region reflected an increase of 4.3 million tons due to depth of waste, as well as the positive compaction effect of a change in waste mix inside the three year average from only unprocessed construction and demolition materials to processed construction and demolition materials, residue, soil, ash and sludge. The increase in airspace capacity in fiscal year 2011 was the result of a positive compaction effect due to a change in waste mix inside of the three year average, which is primarily the result of drill-cutting materials received at our Western region landfills.

NCES.  The North Country Environmental Services (“NCES”) landfill in Bethlehem, New Hampshire serves the wastesheds of New Hampshire and certain Vermont, Maine and Massachusetts wastesheds. The facility is currently permitted to accept municipal solid waste and construction and demolition, or C&D, material. Since the purchase of this landfill in 1994, we have experienced opposition from the town through enactment of restrictive local zoning and planning ordinances. In each case, in order to access additional capacity, we have been required to assert our rights through litigation in the New Hampshire court system. In August 2010, we received approval for additional permitted capacity within the original 51 acres. We believe that the site has additional permittable airspace of up to 1.38 million cubic yards. This airspace is subject to approvals from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. See Item 3 Legal Proceedings of this Form 10-K.

Waste USA.  The Waste USA landfill in Coventry, Vermont serves the major wastesheds throughout Vermont. The landfill is permitted to accept residential and commercially generated municipal solid waste, including pre-approved sludges, soils, and C&D debris. Since our purchase of this landfill in 1995, we have expanded its capacity which we expect to last through approximately fiscal year 2033.

7

Table of Contents

Clinton County.  The Clinton County landfill is located in Schuyler Falls, New York and serves the principal wastesheds of Clinton, Essex, Warren, Washington and Saratoga Counties in New York, and certain selected contiguous Vermont wastesheds. Permitted waste accepted includes residential and commercially generated municipal solid waste, construction and demolition debris and special waste which is approved by regulatory agencies. The facility recently received a permit for a multi-year landfill expansion which will provide considerable additional volume. The Clinton County site commenced operations of a landfill gas-to-energy facility in fiscal year 2009 which has the capacity to generate 6.4mW/hr of energy.

Juniper Ridge.  On February 5, 2004, we completed transactions with the State of Maine and Georgia-Pacific Corporation pursuant to which the State of Maine took ownership of the landfill located in West Old Town, Maine, formerly owned by Georgia Pacific, and we became the operator of that facility under a 30-year operating and services agreement between us and the State of Maine. The site is located on approximately 780 acres with 68 acres currently dedicated for waste disposal. The site has sufficient acreage to permit the additional airspace required for the term of the 30-year operating and services agreement. The site is currently permitted to take C&D debris, ash from municipal solid waste incinerators and fossil fuel boilers, front end processed residuals and bypass municipal solid waste from waste-to-energy facilities, treatment plant sludge and biosolids sandblast grits, oily waste and oil spill debris, and other approved special wastes from within Maine. There are no annual tonnage limitations at Juniper Ridge landfill.

Southbridge.  On November 25, 2003, we acquired Southbridge Recycling and Disposal Park, Inc. (“Southbridge Recycling and Disposal”). Southbridge Recycling and Disposal owns a 13-acre recycling facility and has a contract with the Town of Southbridge, Massachusetts to operate a 146-acre landfill currently permitted to accept residuals from the recycling facility and municipal solid waste. In June 2008, the Southbridge, Massachusetts Board of Health modified the landfill site assignment allowing the site to receive municipal solid waste from communities other than Southbridge, and to increase the annual disposal volume from approximately 0.2 million tons per year to approximately 0.4 million tons per year. In May 2010, we received a permit from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MADEP”) which allows the facility to accept approximately 0.2 million tons per year in total of construction and demolition material and municipal solid waste without regard to the geographic origin of the waste. The Board of Health decision was appealed by opponents of the landfill and will be decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings of this Form 10-K.

Maine Energy Waste-to-Energy Facility.  We own a waste-to-energy facility, Maine Energy, which generates electricity by processing non-hazardous solid waste. This waste-to-energy facility provides us with important additional disposal capacity and generates power for sale. The facility receives solid waste from municipalities under long-term waste handling agreements and raw materials from commercial and private waste haulers and municipalities with short-term contracts, as well as from our collection operations. Maine Energy is contractually required to sell all of the electricity generated at its facility to Nextera Energy Power Marketing, LLC, an electric utility.

Hyland.  The Hyland landfill, located in Angelica, New York, serves certain wastesheds located throughout western New York. The facility is permitted to accept residential, commercial and municipal solid waste, C&D debris and special waste. The site consists of approximately 624 acres, which represents considerable additional expansion capabilities. A permit for future expansion was issued in December 2006 for approximately 11 million cubic yards and we are currently seeking an additional 9.9 million cubic yards of permittable capacity. The landfill is currently permitted to accept approximately 0.3 million tons annually and has a minor modification pending with the NYS DEC to increase the annual capacity by 49%. In late August 2008, the Hyland site commenced operation of a landfill gas to energy facility which has the capacity to generate 4.8 mW/hr of energy.  The Hyland landfill benefits from the Marcellus Shale natural gas extractions, which in fiscal year 2011 made up approximately 50% of the tons accepted at Hyland.

Ontario.  We entered into a 25-year operation, management and lease agreement with the Ontario County Board of Supervisors for the Ontario County landfill, which is located in the Town of Seneca, New York. We commenced operations on December 8, 2003. This landfill serves the central New York wasteshed and is strategically situated to accept long haul volume from both eastern and downstate markets. The site consists of approximately 380 total acres with additional potential expansions amounting to an estimated 12.2 million tons. During fiscal year 2008 we successfully requested and received a minor modification to increase our annual allowance of placed tons over the original permit of 0.6 million tons to 0.9 million tons. The Ontario site also houses a single stream recycling facility and a landfill-gas-to energy plant, which has the capacity to generate 6.4 mW/hr of energy. See Note 11(b) to our Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Hakes.  The Hakes construction and demolition landfill in Campbell, New York is permitted to accept only C&D material. The landfill serves the principal rural wastesheds of western New York. During fiscal year 2008, we successfully requested and received a minor modification to increase our annual allowance of placed tons over the original permit of 0.3 million tons to 0.5 million tons.

Chemung.  We entered into a 25-year operation, management and lease agreement with Chemung County for certain facilities located within the county utilized in the collection, management and disposal of solid waste including the Chemung County landfill, which is

8

Table of Contents

located in the Town of Chemung, New York. We commenced operations on September 19, 2005. This landfill serves the central and southern tier New York wastesheds and is strategically situated to accept long haul volume from both eastern and downstate markets. The site consists of approximately 38 active acres permitted to accept 0.1 million tons of municipal solid waste per year and 12.8 active acres permitted to accept approximately twenty thousand tons of C&D material per year. We are pursuing an increase in annual permitted volumes through a minor modification to the existing permit, which could expand municipal solid waste volumes by approximately sixty thousand tons annually. The landfill has further expansion capabilities of an additional 25 acres and an estimated 11.7 million cubic yards, representing approximately 6.4 million tons.  In addition, in April 2010 we successfully negotiated an amendment to the management and lease agreement allowing the annual tonnage to be increased to 0.4 million tons per year, subject to regulatory approval.

McKean.  We were successful in acquiring the McKean landfill business out of bankruptcy during February 2011.  This facility is located in Mount Jewitt, McKean County, Pennsylvania and serves the PA Northern Tier and NY Southern Tier wastesheds.  The facility consists of 131 acres of which 52.1 acres are dedicated to landfilling and has a daily permitted capacity to receive one thousand tons.  The site has more than 3 million cubic yards of remaining airspace with future expansion capacity for an additional 33 million cubic yards.  Also, the site has the capability to accept waste delivered by rail including a daily limit of five thousand tons.  We expect this site to benefit from the Marcellus Shale natural gas extractions in the wastesheds served by the landfill.

Closure Projects

In April 2005 we started closure operations at the Worcester, Massachusetts landfill, a closure project with approximately 0.7 million tons of available capacity as of April 30, 2011. In January 2006, we assumed the closure contract for this landfill. In addition, in the second quarter of fiscal year 2009, as part of a planned closure, we ceased operations at the Colebrook facility and began the process of capping and closing the site. The Worcester landfill is not included in the above table of remaining landfill capacity.

In addition, we own and/or operated six unlined landfills and three lined landfills that are not currently in operation. All of these landfills have been closed and capped to applicable environmental regulatory standards by us.

Operating Segments

We manage our solid waste operations, which include a full range of solid waste services, on a geographic basis through two regional operating segments, which we designate as the Eastern and Western regions. Our third operating segment is Recycling, which comprises our larger-scale, non-solid waste recycling and our commodity brokerage operations.  See Note 20 to our Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K for a summary of revenues, certain expenses, profitability, capital expenditures, goodwill, and total assets of our operating segments. Ancillary operations, major customer accounts, discontinued operations and earnings from equity method investees are included in our “Other” reportable segment.

Within each geographic region, we organize our solid waste services around smaller areas that we refer to as “wastesheds.” A wasteshed is an area that comprises the complete cycle of activities in the solid waste services process, from collection to transfer operations and recycling to disposal in either landfills or waste-to-energy facilities, some of which may be owned and operated by third parties. We typically operate several divisions within each wasteshed, each of which provides a particular service, such as collection, recycling, disposal or transfer. Each of these divisions operates interdependently with the other divisions within the wasteshed. Each wasteshed generally operates autonomously from adjoining wastesheds.

Through its 6 MRFs and one commodity brokerage operation, Recycling services 4 anchor contracts, which generally have an original term of five to ten years and expire at various times between 2011 and 2028. The terms of each of the contracts vary, but all of the contracts provide that the municipality or a third party delivers materials to our facility. These contracts may include a minimum volume guarantee by the municipality. We also have service agreements with individual towns and cities and commercial customers, including small solid waste companies and major competitors that do not have processing capacity within a specific geographic region.

9

Table of Contents

The following table provides information about each solid waste region and Recycling (as of May 31, 2011 except revenue information, which is for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2011).

(1)                                  In addition to the disposal facilities shown above we operate the Worcester, Massachusetts landfill, a closure project with approximately 0.7 million tons of available capacity as of April 30, 2011.

Eastern region

The Eastern region consists of wastesheds located in Maine and the assets located in eastern Massachusetts and in the New Hampshire seacoast area. The Maine wastesheds generally have been affected by the regional constraints on disposal capacity imposed by the public policies of New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts, which have, over the past ten years, either limited new landfill development or precluded development of additional capacity from existing landfills. Consequently, the Eastern region relies more heavily on non-landfill waste-to-energy disposal capacity than the Western region. Maine Energy is one of four waste-to-energy facilities in Maine.

We entered Maine in 1996 with the purchase of the assets comprising New England Waste Services of ME, Inc. in Hampden, Maine.  The acquisition of KTI, Inc. in 1999 significantly improved disposal capacity in this region, as the acquisition included the Maine Energy waste-to-energy facility, and provided an alternative internalization option for solid waste assets in eastern Massachusetts. In 2004, we obtained the right to operate the Juniper Ridge landfill under a 30-year agreement with the State of Maine.

We entered eastern Massachusetts in fiscal year 2000 with the acquisition of assets that were divested by Allied Waste Industries (prior to its merger with Republic Services, Inc.) and through the acquisition of smaller independent operators. In this market, we rely to a large extent on third party disposal capacity. We believe that there is a greater opportunity to increase internalization rates and operating efficiencies in eastern Massachusetts facilities through the operating contract with the Town of Southbridge to operate the Southbridge landfill, which is currently permitted to accept up to a combined 0.2 million tons per year of construction and demolition material and municipal solid waste.

Western region

The Western region includes wastesheds located in Vermont, north and south western New Hampshire and eastern New York that were previously included in the now eliminated Central region. The portion of New York served by the Western region includes Clinton (operation of the Clinton County landfill), Franklin, Essex, Warren, Washington, Saratoga, Rennselaer and Albany counties. Our Waste USA landfill in Coventry, Vermont is one of only two operating permitted Subtitle D landfills in Vermont, and our NCES landfill in Bethlehem, New Hampshire is one of only six operating permitted Subtitle D landfills in New Hampshire. Additionally, the Western region now includes an additional 13 operating permitted Subtitle D landfills that were previously included in the Central region.

Vermont, New Hampshire and eastern New York wastesheds have become our most mature operating platform, as we have operated in this area since our inception in 1975. We have achieved a high degree of vertical integration of the waste stream in this portion of the Western region, resulting in stable cash flow performance and a market leadership position.

10

Table of Contents

We believe that future operating efficiencies in Vermont, New Hampshire and eastern New York will be driven primarily by improving our core operating efficiencies, offering increased recycling capabilities such as single stream processing, providing enhanced customer service, and further building relationships with our customers and communities.

The Western region also consists of wastesheds in upstate New York (which includes Ithaca, Elmira, Oneonta, Lowville, Potsdam, Geneva, Auburn, Dunkirk, Jamestown and Olean). Our entrance into these wastesheds began with our acquisition of Superior Disposal Services, Inc.’s business in 1997 and has expanded largely through tuck-in acquisitions and internal growth. Our collection operations include leadership positions in nearly every rural market outside of the larger metropolitan markets such as Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and Albany.

While we have achieved strong market positions in the New York wastesheds, we remain focused on increasing our vertical integration through expansion of annual permitted capacity at existing landfills and densification of hauling businesses that can internalize waste to our landfills. With the ownership of the Hyland and Hakes landfills and operation of the Ontario and Chemung County landfills, our strategy is to expand annual landfill permits to drive return on invested capital and cash flows. Future opportunities may exist to replicate our strategic partnerships with county and municipal governments for the operation and/or utilization of their landfills, and, subject to capital allocation, we expect that we would pursue these opportunities if they would enhance our shareholder returns.

Recycling

Recycling is one of the largest processors and marketers of recycled materials in the eastern United States, comprising 6 MRFs that process and then market recyclable materials that municipalities and commercial customers deliver to them under long-term contracts. 3 of the 6 MRFs are leased, the other 3 are owned. In fiscal year 2011, Recycling processed and marketed approximately 0.5 million tons of recyclable materials.  Recycling’s facilities are located in the states of Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine.

A significant portion of the material provided to Recycling is delivered pursuant to 4 anchor contracts, which are long-term contracts. The anchor contracts generally have an original term of five to ten years and expire at various times between 2011 and 2028. The terms of each of the contracts vary, but all of the contracts provide that the municipality or a third party delivers materials to our facility. In approximately one-third of the contracts, the municipalities agree to deliver a guaranteed tonnage and the municipality pays a fee for the amount of any shortfall from the guaranteed tonnage if certain other conditions are not met. Under the terms of the individual contracts, we charge the municipality a fee for each ton of material delivered to us. Some contracts contain revenue sharing arrangements under which the municipality receives a specified percentage of the revenues from the sale by us of the recovered materials.

Recycling derives a significant portion of its revenues from the sale of recyclable materials. The purchase and sale prices of recyclable materials, particularly newspaper, corrugated containers, plastics, ferrous and aluminum, can fluctuate based upon market conditions. We use long-term supply contracts with customers with floor price arrangements to reduce the commodity risk for certain recyclables, particularly newspaper, cardboard, plastics, aluminum and metals. Under such contracts, we obtain a guaranteed minimum price for the recyclable materials along with a commitment to receive additional amounts if the current market price rises above the floor price. The contracts are generally with large domestic companies that use the recyclable materials in their manufacturing process, such as paper, packaging and consumer goods companies. In fiscal year 2011, 51% of the revenues from the sale of residential recyclable materials were derived from sales under long-term contracts with floor prices. We also hedge against fluctuations in the commodity prices of recycled paper and corrugated containers in order to mitigate the variability in cash flows and earnings generated from the sales of recycled materials at floating prices.

GreenFiber Cellulose Insulation Joint Venture

We are a 50% partner in GreenFiber, a joint venture with Louisiana-Pacific Corporation. GreenFiber, which we believe is the largest manufacturer of high quality cellulose insulation for use in residential dwellings and manufactured housing, was formed through the combination of our cellulose operations, which we acquired in our acquisition of KTI, with those of Louisiana-Pacific. Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, GreenFiber has a national manufacturing and distribution capability and sells to contractors, manufactured home builders and retailers, including Home Depot, Inc. GreenFiber has 8 manufacturing facilities, located in Charlotte, North Carolina; Delphos, Ohio; Norfolk, Nebraska; Phoenix, Arizona; Tampa, Florida; Albany, New York; Waco, Texas; and Salt Lake City, Utah. GreenFiber utilizes a hedging strategy to help stabilize its exposure to fluctuating newsprint costs, which generally represent approximately 45% of its raw material costs. We account for our investment in GreenFiber under the equity method of accounting.

11

Table of Contents

RecycleRewards

In January 2006, we acquired an interest in the common stock of RecycleBank, LLC (“RecycleBank”), a company that markets an incentive-based recycling service, for total consideration of $3.0 million. During fiscal year 2007, RecycleBank borrowed $2.0 million from us under a convertible loan agreement. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, we converted this note to equity thereby increasing our investment. Additional investments in RecycleBank were made during fiscal year 2007 increasing our total common stock ownership interest to 20.5% at April 30, 2007. In April 2008, RecycleBank completed an equity offering to third party investors that reduced our common share interest to 16.2%.  In November 2009, RecycleBank completed an equity offering to third party investors that reduced our common share interest to 10.6%. In January 2011, RecycleBank completed an equity offering to third party investors that reduced our common share interest to 8.2%. As a result of an internal reorganization by RecycleBank, our investment is now held in RecycleRewards, the parent entity of RecycleBank. Our investment in RecycleRewards amounted to $4.5 million at April 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.  Effective April 2008, we accounted for our investment in RecycleRewards under the cost method of accounting. Prior to April 2008, we had accounted for this investment under the equity method of accounting.

Evergreen

In April 2003, we acquired a 9.9% interest in Evergreen for total consideration of $5.3 million. In December 2003, we acquired an additional 9.9% interest in Evergreen for total consideration of $5.3 million. Our investment in Evergreen amounted to $10.7 million at April 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. We account for our investment in Evergreen under the cost method of accounting.

Competition

The solid waste services industry is highly competitive. We compete for collection and disposal volume primarily on the basis of the quality, breadth and price of our services. From time to time, competitors may reduce the price of their services in an effort to expand market share or to win a competitively bid municipal contract. These practices may also lead to reduced pricing for our services or the loss of business. In addition, competition exists within the industry not only for collection, transportation and disposal volume, but also for potential acquisition candidates.

The larger urban markets in which we compete are served by one or more of the large national solid waste companies, including Waste Management, Inc. and Republic Services, Inc., that may be able to achieve greater economies of scale than us. We also compete with a number of regional and local companies that offer competitive prices and quality service. In addition, we compete with operators of alternative disposal facilities, including incinerators, and with certain municipalities, counties and districts that operate their own solid waste collection and disposal facilities. Public sector facilities may have certain advantages over us due to the availability of user fees, charges or tax revenues and tax-exempt financing.

The insulation industry is highly competitive and labor intensive. In our cellulose insulation manufacturing activities, GreenFiber, our joint venture with Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, competes primarily with manufacturers of fiberglass insulation such as Owens Corning, CertainTeed Corporation and Johns Manville. These manufacturers have significant market shares and are substantially better capitalized than GreenFiber.

Marketing and Sales

We have fully integrated sales and marketing strategies, originating at the enterprise level with the primary focus of acquiring and retaining commercial, industrial, municipal and residential customers. Our business strategy for over thirty-five years has been tied to creating a highly differentiated sustainable resource management model that meets customers’ unique needs and provides value “beyond the curb”.

Maintenance of a local presence and identity is an important aspect of our sales and marketing strategy, and many of our divisional managers are involved in local governmental, civic and business organizations. Our name and logo, or, where appropriate, that of our divisional operations, are displayed on all of our containers and trucks. We attend and make presentations at municipal and state conferences, and advertise in governmental associations’ membership publications.

The selling organization has been completely realigned over the past year to incorporate, a more robust sales training curriculum, fully revamped marketing collateral, as well as enhanced brand building advertising across our entire operating footprint. The realigned sales program encompasses an updated sales incentive program tied solely to the overall profitability of a territory manager’s book of business; and the introduction of a redesigned prospect database management system that allows a territory to manager to identify new collection customers, as well as view all existing customer data in one consolidated platform.  This prospect database is also augmented by more traditional sales techniques, such as leads developed from new building permits, business licenses and other public records.

12

Table of Contents

Employees

As of May 31, 2011, we employed approximately 1,800 people, including approximately 400 professionals or managers, sales, clerical, information systems or other administrative employees and approximately 1,400 employees involved in collection, transfer, disposal, recycling or other operations. Approximately 100 of our employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements. We believe relations with our employees are satisfactory.

Risk Management, Insurance and Performance or Surety Bonds

We actively maintain environmental and other risk management programs that we believe are appropriate for our business. Our environmental risk management program includes evaluating existing facilities, as well as potential acquisitions, for compliance with environmental law requirements. We also maintain a worker safety program, which focuses on safe practices in the workplace. Operating practices at all of our operations are intended to reduce the possibility of environmental contamination enforcement actions and litigation.

We carry a range of insurance intended to protect our assets and operations, including a commercial general liability policy and a property damage policy. A partially or completely uninsured claim against us (including liabilities associated with cleanup or remediation at our facilities), if successful and of sufficient magnitude, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Any future difficulty in obtaining insurance could also impair our ability to secure future contracts, which may be conditioned upon the availability of adequate insurance coverage.

We are self insured for automobile and workers’ compensation coverage. Our maximum exposure in fiscal 2011 under the workers’ compensation plan was $1.0 million per individual event, after which reinsurance takes effect. Our maximum exposure under the automobile plan was $0.8 million per individual event, after which reinsurance takes effect.

Municipal solid waste collection contracts and landfill closure and post-closure obligations may require performance or surety bonds, letters of credit or other means of financial assurance to secure contractual performance. While we have not experienced difficulty in obtaining these financial instruments, if we were unable to obtain these financial instruments in sufficient amounts or at acceptable rates we could be precluded from entering into additional municipal solid waste collection contracts or obtaining or retaining landfill operating permits.

We hold a 19.9% ownership interest in Evergreen, a surety company which provides surety bonds to us to secure our contractual obligations for certain municipal solid waste collection contracts and landfill closure and post-closure obligations.

Customers

We provide our collection services to commercial, industrial and residential customers. A majority of our commercial and industrial collection services are performed under one-to-three-year service agreements, and fees are determined by such factors as collection frequency, type of equipment and containers furnished, the type, volume and weight of the solid waste collected, the distance to the disposal or processing facility and the cost of disposal or processing. Our residential collection and disposal services are performed either on a subscription basis (e.g., with no underlying contract) with individuals, or through contracts with municipalities, homeowners associations, apartment owners or mobile home park operators.

Maine Energy is contractually required to sell all of the electricity generated at its facilities to Nextera Energy Power Marketing, LLC, an electric utility, and guarantees 100% of its electricity generating capacity to FPL Energy Power Marketing, Inc., both pursuant to a contract that was amended to extend its term to December 31, 2011 and is based on “day ahead” electricity prices.

Recycling provides recycling services to municipalities, commercial haulers and commercial waste generators within the geographic proximity of the processing facilities.

Our cellulose insulation joint venture, GreenFiber, sells to contractors, manufactured home builders and retailers.

Raw Materials

Maine Energy received approximately 9% of its solid waste in fiscal year 2011 from 17 Maine municipalities under long-term waste handling agreements. Maine Energy also receives raw materials from commercial and private waste haulers and municipalities with short-term contracts, as well as from our own collection operations.

13

Table of Contents

Seasonality

Our transfer and disposal revenues historically have been lower during the months of November through March. This seasonality reflects the lower volume of waste during the late fall, winter and early spring months primarily because:

·                  the volume of waste relating to C&D activities decreases substantially during the winter months in the northeastern United States; and

·                  decreased tourism in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and eastern New York during the winter months tends to lower the volume of waste generated by commercial and restaurant customers, which is partially offset by increased volume due to the ski industry.

Because certain of our operating and fixed costs remain constant throughout the fiscal year, operating income is therefore impacted by a similar seasonality. Particularly harsh weather conditions typically result in increased operating costs.

The Recycling segment experiences increased volumes of newspaper in November and December due to increased newspaper advertising and retail activity during the holiday season. GreenFiber experiences lower sales from April through July due to lower retail activity.

Regulation

Introduction

We are subject to extensive and evolving federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations which have become increasingly stringent in recent years. Our waste-to-energy facility also is subject to federal energy law.  The environmental regulations affecting us are administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and other federal, state and local environmental, zoning, health and safety agencies. Failure to comply with such requirements could result in substantial costs, including civil and criminal fines and penalties. Except as described in this Form 10-K, we believe that we are currently in substantial compliance with applicable federal, state and local environmental laws, permits, orders and regulations. Other than as disclosed herein, we do not currently anticipate any material costs to bring our operations into environmental compliance, although there can be no assurance in this regard for the future. We expect that our operations in the solid waste services industry will be subject to continued and increased regulation, legislation and regulatory enforcement actions. We attempt to anticipate future legal and regulatory requirements and to carry out plans intended to keep our operations in compliance with those requirements.

In order to transport, process, incinerate, or dispose of solid waste, it is necessary for us to possess and comply with one or more permits from federal, state and/or local agencies. We must renew these permits periodically, and the permits may be modified or revoked by the issuing agency.

The principal federal statutes and regulations applicable to our various operations are as follows:

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (“RCRA”)

RCRA regulates the generation, treatment, storage, handling, transportation and disposal of solid waste and requires states to develop programs to ensure the safe disposal of solid waste. RCRA divides solid waste into two categories, hazardous and non-hazardous. Wastes are generally classified as hazardous if they (1) either (a) are specifically included on a list of hazardous wastes, or (b) exhibit certain characteristics defined as hazardous, and (2) are not specifically designated as non-hazardous. Wastes classified as hazardous under RCRA are subject to more extensive regulation than wastes classified as non-hazardous, and businesses that deal with hazardous waste are subject to regulatory obligations in addition to those imposed on handlers of non-hazardous waste.

Among the wastes that are specifically designated as non-hazardous are household waste and “special” waste, including items such as petroleum contaminated soils, asbestos, foundry sand, shredder fluff and most non-hazardous industrial waste products.

The EPA regulations issued under Subtitle C of RCRA impose a comprehensive “cradle to grave” system for tracking the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. Subtitle C regulations impose obligations on generators, transporters and disposers of hazardous wastes, and require permits that are costly to obtain and maintain for sites where those businesses treat, store or dispose of such material. Subtitle C requirements include detailed operating, inspection, training and emergency preparedness and response standards, as well as requirements for manifesting, record keeping and reporting, corrective action, facility closure, post-closure and financial responsibility. Most states have promulgated regulations modeled on some or all of the Subtitle C provisions issued by the EPA, and in many instances the EPA has delegated to those states the principal role in regulating businesses which are subject to those requirements. Some state regulations impose different, additional obligations.

14

Table of Contents

We currently do not accept for transportation or disposal hazardous substances (as defined in CERCLA, discussed below) in concentrations or volumes that would classify those materials as hazardous wastes. However, we have transported hazardous substances in the past and very likely will transport and dispose of hazardous substances in the future, to the extent that materials defined as hazardous substances under CERCLA are present in consumer goods and in the non-hazardous waste streams of our customers.

We do not accept hazardous wastes for incineration at our waste-to-energy facility. We typically test ash produced at our waste-to-energy facility on a regular basis; that ash generally does not contain hazardous substances in sufficient concentrations or volumes to result in the ash being classified as hazardous waste. However, it is possible that future waste streams accepted for incineration could contain elevated volumes or concentrations of hazardous substances or that legal requirements will change, and that the resulting incineration ash would be classified as hazardous waste.

Leachate generated at our landfills and transfer stations is tested on a regular basis, and generally is not regulated as a hazardous waste under federal law, although there is no guarantee that leachate generated from our facilities in the future will not be classified as hazardous waste.

In October 1991, the EPA adopted the Subtitle D regulations under RCRA governing solid waste landfills. The Subtitle D regulations, which generally became effective in October 1993, include siting restrictions, facility design standards, operating criteria, closure and post-closure requirements, financial assurance requirements, groundwater monitoring requirements, groundwater remediation standards and corrective action requirements. In addition, the Subtitle D regulations require that new landfill sites meet more stringent liner design criteria (typically, composite soil and synthetic liners or two or more synthetic liners) intended to keep leachate out of groundwater and have extensive collection systems to carry away leachate for treatment prior to disposal. Regulations generally require us to install groundwater monitoring wells at virtually all landfills we operate, to monitor groundwater quality and, indirectly, the effectiveness of the leachate collection systems. The Subtitle D regulations also require facility owners or operators to control emissions of landfill gas (including methane) generated at landfills exceeding certain regulatory thresholds. State landfill regulations must meet these requirements or the EPA will impose such requirements upon landfill owners and operators in that state.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended (“Clean Water Act”)

The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into the “waters of the United States” from a variety of sources, including solid waste disposal sites and transfer stations, processing facilities and waste-to-energy facilities (collectively, “solid waste management facilities”). If run-off or collected leachate from our solid waste management facilities, or process or cooling waters generated at our waste-to-energy facility, is discharged into streams, rivers or other surface waters, the Clean Water Act would require us to apply for and obtain a discharge permit, conduct sampling and monitoring and, under certain circumstances, reduce the quantity of pollutants in such discharge. A permit also may be required if that run-off, leachate, or process or cooling water is discharged to a treatment facility that is owned by a local municipality. Finally, virtually all solid waste management facilities must comply with the EPA’s storm water regulations, which regulate the discharge of impacted storm water to surface waters.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”)

CERCLA established a regulatory and remedial program intended to provide for the investigation and remediation of facilities where or from which a release of any hazardous substance into the environment has occurred or is threatened. CERCLA has been interpreted to impose retroactive strict, and under certain circumstances, joint and several, liability for investigation and cleanup of facilities on current owners and operators of the site, former owners and operators of the site at the time of the disposal of the hazardous substances, as well as the generators and certain transporters of the hazardous substances. In addition, CERCLA imposes liability for the costs of evaluating and addressing damage to natural resources. The costs of CERCLA investigation and cleanup can be very substantial. Liability under CERCLA does not depend upon the existence or disposal of “hazardous waste” as defined by RCRA, but can be based on the existence of any of more than 700 “hazardous substances” listed by the EPA, many of which can be found in household waste. In addition, the definition of “hazardous substances” in CERCLA incorporates substances designated as hazardous or toxic under the Federal Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Toxic Substances Control Act. If we were found to be a responsible party for a CERCLA cleanup, the enforcing agency could hold us, under certain circumstances, or any other responsible party, responsible for all investigative and remedial costs, even if others also were liable. CERCLA also authorizes EPA to impose a lien in favor of the United States upon all real property subject to, or affected by, a remedial action for all costs for which a party is liable. CERCLA provides a responsible party with the right to bring a contribution action against other responsible parties for their allocable share of investigative and remedial costs. Our ability to get others to reimburse us for their allocable share of such costs would be limited by our ability to identify and locate other responsible parties and prove the extent of their responsibility and by the financial resources of such other parties.

15

Table of Contents

The Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (“Clean Air Act”)

The Clean Air Act, generally through state implementation of federal requirements, regulates emissions of air pollutants from certain landfills based upon the date the landfill was constructed and the annual volume of emissions. The EPA has promulgated new source performance standards regulating air emissions of certain regulated pollutants (methane and non-methane organic compounds) from municipal solid waste landfills. Landfills located in areas where levels of regulated pollutants exceed certain thresholds may be subject to even more extensive air pollution controls and emission limitations. In addition, the EPA has issued standards regulating the disposal of asbestos-containing materials under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA is focusing on the emissions of greenhouse gases (“GHG”), including carbon dioxide and methane. In December, 2009, EPA issued its “endangerment finding” that carbon dioxide poses a threat to human health and welfare, providing the basis for EPA to promulgate GHG air quality standards.  This could, in turn, require us to install systems to monitor and control such emissions. In addition, in December 2009 the EPA’s “Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases” rule went into effect, requiring facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions to submit annual reports to EPA commencing in March 2011 — this deadline was extended by the EPA on March 18, 2011 to September 30, 2011.

In June 2010, EPA issued the so-called “GHG Tailoring Rule’, which described how certain sources that emit GHG would be subject to heightened Clean Air Act PSD / Title V regulation.  More recently, however, in March 2011, EPA issued a proposed rule that would, broadly, defer for three years its development of those regulations with regard to sources emitting carbon dioxide from biomass-fired and other “biogenic” sources.

The adoption of other laws and regulations, which may include the imposition of fees or taxes, could adversely affect our collection and disposal operations. Additionally, certain of the states in which we operate are contemplating air pollution control regulations relating to GHG that may be more stringent than regulations EPA may promulgate. Changing environmental regulations could require us to take any number of actions, including the purchase of emission allowances or installation of additional pollution control technology, and could make some operations less profitable, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

Congress also is considering various options, including a cap and trade system, which could impose a limit on and establish a pricing mechanism for GHG emissions and emission allowances. There also is increasing pressure for the United States to join international efforts to control GHG emissions.

The Clean Air Act regulates emissions of air pollutants from our waste-to-energy facility and certain of our processing facilities. The EPA has enacted standards that apply to those emissions. It is possible that the EPA, or a state where we operate, will enact additional or different emission standards in the future.

All of the federal statutes described above authorize lawsuits by private citizens to enforce certain provisions of the statutes. In addition to a penalty award to the United States, some of those statutes authorize an award of attorney’s fees to private parties successfully advancing such an action.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended (“OSHA”)

OSHA establishes employer responsibilities and authorizes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to promulgate and enforce occupational health and safety standards, including the obligation to maintain a workplace free of recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious injury, to comply with adopted worker protection standards, to maintain certain records, to provide workers with required disclosures and to implement certain health and safety training programs. Various of those promulgated standards may apply to our operations, including those standards concerning notices of hazards, safety in excavation and demolition work, the handling of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials, and worker training and emergency response programs.

The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, As Amended (“PURPA”)

Our waste-to-energy facility has been certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as a “qualifying small power production facility” under the PURPA. PURPA exempts qualifying facilities from most federal and state laws governing electric utility rates and financial organization, and generally requires electric utilities to purchase electricity generated by qualifying facilities at a price equal to the utility’s full “avoided cost.  Our three landfill gas-to-energy facilities are self- certified as “qualifying facilities” as well.

State and Local Regulations

Each state in which we now operate or may operate in the future has laws and regulations governing (1) water and air pollution, and the generation, storage, treatment, handling, processing, transportation, incineration and disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste; (2) in most cases, the siting, design, operation, maintenance, closure and post-closure maintenance of solid waste management

16

Table of Contents

facilities; and (3) in some cases, vehicle emissions limits or fuel types, which impact our collection operations.  Such standards typically are as stringent as, and may be more stringent and broader in scope than, the federal regulations. In addition, many states have adopted statutes comparable to, and in some cases more stringent than, CERCLA. These statutes impose requirements for investigation and remediation of contaminated sites and liability for costs and damages associated with such sites, and some authorize the state to impose liens to secure costs expended addressing contamination on property owned by responsible parties. Some of those liens may take priority over previously filed instruments.

Many municipalities in which we currently operate or may operate in the future also have ordinances, laws and regulations affecting our operations. These include zoning and health measures that limit solid waste management activities to specified sites or conduct, flow control provisions that direct the delivery of solid wastes to specific facilities or to facilities in specific areas, laws that grant the right to establish franchises for collection services and then put out for bid the right to provide collection services, and bans or other restrictions on the movement of solid wastes into a municipality.

Some states have enacted laws that allow agencies with jurisdiction over waste management facilities to deny or revoke permits based on the applicant’s or permit holder’s compliance status. Some states also consider the compliance history of the corporate parent, subsidiaries and affiliates.

Certain permits and approvals issued under state or local law may limit the types of waste that may be accepted at a solid waste management facility or the quantity of waste that may be accepted at a solid waste management facility during a given time period. In addition, certain permits and approvals, as well as certain state and local regulations, may limit a solid waste management facility to accepting waste that originates from specified geographic areas or seek to restrict the importation of out-of-state waste or otherwise discriminate against out-of-state waste. Generally, restrictions on importing out-of-state waste have not withstood judicial challenge. However, from time to time federal legislation is proposed which would allow individual states to prohibit the disposal of out-of-state waste or to limit the amount of out-of-state waste that could be imported for disposal and would require states, under certain circumstances, to reduce the amounts of waste exported to other states. Although such legislation has not been passed by Congress, if similar legislation is enacted, states in which we operate solid waste management facilities could limit or prohibit the importation of out-of-state waste. Such actions could materially and adversely affect the business, financial condition and results of operations of any of our landfills within those states that receive a significant portion of waste originating from out-of-state.

Certain states and localities may, for economic or other reasons, restrict the export of waste from their jurisdiction, or require that a specified amount of waste be disposed of at facilities within their jurisdiction. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected as unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, a local ordinance that sought to limit waste going out of the locality by imposing a requirement that the waste be delivered to a particular privately-owned facility. However, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a U.S. District Court ruling that the flow control regulations in Oneida and Herkimer Counties in New York requiring trash haulers to use publicly-owned transfer stations are constitutional, and therefore valid. Additionally, certain state and local jurisdictions continue to seek to enforce such restrictions. Further, some proposed federal legislation would allow states and localities to impose flow restrictions. Those restrictions could reduce the volume of waste going to solid waste management facilities in certain areas, which may materially adversely affect our ability to operate our facilities and/or affect the prices we can charge for certain services. Those restrictions also may result in higher disposal costs for our collection operations. In sum, flow control restrictions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

There has been an increasing trend at the state and local levels to mandate or encourage both waste reduction at the source and waste recycling, and to prohibit or restrict the disposal in landfills of certain types of solid wastes, including yard wastes and leaves, beverage containers, newspapers, household appliances and electronics such as computers, and batteries. Regulations reducing the volume and types of wastes available for transport to and disposal in landfills could affect our ability to operate our landfill facilities.

Executive Officers and Other Key Employees of the Company

Our executive officers and other key employees and their respective ages as of May 31, 2011 are as follows:

17

Table of Contents

John W. Casella has served as Chairman of our Board of Directors since July 2001 and as our Chief Executive Officer since 1993. Mr. Casella served as President from 1993 to July 2001 and as Chairman of the Board of Directors from 1993 to December 1999. In addition, Mr. Casella has been Chairman of the Board of Directors of Casella Waste Management, Inc. since 1977. Mr. Casella is also an executive officer and director of Casella Construction, Inc., a company owned by Mr. Casella and Douglas R. Casella. Mr. Casella has been a member of numerous industry-related and community service-related state and local boards and commissions including the Board of Directors of the Associated Industries of Vermont, The Association of Vermont Recyclers, Vermont State Chamber of Commerce and the Rutland Industrial Development Corporation. Mr. Casella has also served on various state task forces, serving in an advisory capacity to the Governors of Vermont and New Hampshire on solid waste issues. Mr. Casella holds an Associate of Science in Business Management from Bryant & Stratton University and a Bachelor of Science in Business Education from Castleton State College. Mr. Casella is the brother of Douglas R. Casella, a member of our Board of Directors.

Paul A. Larkin has served as our President and Chief Operating Officer since January 2008. From June 1998 until he joined us, Mr. Larkin served in a number of operating capacities for Office Depot, Inc., including, from 2007 through 2008 as Vice President for international strategy, from 2005 to 2007 as Regional Vice President of retail stores responsible for overseeing $1.0 billion of sales, and from 2000 to 2005 as Vice President of supply chain and inventory management. From 1996 to 1998, Mr. Larkin was the Director of Logistics for AutoNation USA, Inc. From 1987 to 1996, Mr. Larkin served in the United States Army in a number of command and staff positions culminating as Aide de Camp for the Director of Logistics, United States Atlantic Command. Mr. Larkin received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Clark University.

Edwin D. Johnson has served as our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since July 2010. From March 2007 to July 2010, Mr. Johnson served as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer at Waste Services, Inc. From November 2004 to March 2007, Mr. Johnson served as Chief Financial Officer of Expert Real Estate Services, Inc., a full service real estate brokerage company. Mr. Johnson holds an MBA from Florida International University and a Bachelor of Science in Accounting and Administration from Washington & Lee University.

David L. Schmitt has served as our Vice President and General Counsel since May 2006. Prior to that, Mr. Schmitt was President of his privately held consulting firm, and further served from 2002 until 2005 as Vice President and General Counsel of BioEnergy International, LLC. He served from 1995 until 2001, as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Bradlees, Inc., a large box retailer in the northeastern United States, and from 1986 through 1990, as Vice President and General Counsel of Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from The Pennsylvania State University, and his Juris Doctor, cum laude, from Duquesne University School of Law.

Available Information

Our internet website is http://www.casella.com. We make available, through our website free of charge, our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports filed pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with or furnish them to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The information found on our website is not part of this or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC.

You may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. You may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC also maintains an Internet website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding Casella and other issuers that file electronically with the SEC. The SEC’s Internet website address is http://www.sec.gov.

ITEM 1A.  RISK FACTORS

The following important factors, among others, could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and presented elsewhere by management from time to time. The risks and uncertainties described below are those that we have identified as material, but are not the only risks and uncertainties facing us. Our business is also subject to general risks and uncertainties that affect many other companies, including overall economic and industry conditions, especially in the northeastern United States, where our operations and customers are principally located, changes in laws or accounting rules or other disruptions of expected economic or business conditions. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently believe are not material also may impair our business results of operations and financial condition.

18

Table of Contents

Economic conditions have adversely affected our revenues and our operating margin and may impact our efforts to pay our outstanding indebtedness.

Our business has been affected by changes in economic conditions that are outside of our control, including reductions in business and consumer activity generally, and of construction spending in particular, which have significantly impacted the demand for our collection and landfill services, and declines in commodity prices, which have materially reduced our recycling revenues. As a result of the economic environment we may also be adversely impacted by our customers’ inability to pay us in a timely manner, if at all, due to their financial difficulties, which could include bankruptcies. The availability of credit since the second half of calendar year 2008 has been severely limited, which has negatively affected business and consumer spending generally. If our customers do not have access to capital, we do not expect that our volumes will improve or that we will increase new business.

We face substantial competition in the solid waste services industry.

The solid waste services industry is highly competitive, has undergone a period of consolidation and requires substantial labor and capital resources. Some of the markets in which we compete or will likely compete are served by, or are adjacent to markets served by, one or more of the large national or multinational solid waste companies, as well as numerous regional and local solid waste companies. Intense competition exists not only to provide services to customers, but also to acquire other businesses within each market. Some of our competitors have significantly greater financial and other resources than we do. From time to time, competitors may reduce the price of their services in an effort to expand market share or to win a competitively bid contract. These practices may require us to reduce the pricing of our services and may result in a loss of business.

As is generally the case in our industry, some municipal contracts are subject to periodic competitive bidding. We may not be the successful bidder to obtain or retain these contracts. If we are unable to compete with larger and better capitalized companies or replace municipal contracts lost through the competitive bidding process with comparable contracts or other revenue sources within a reasonable time period, our revenues would decrease and our operating results would be harmed.

In our solid waste disposal markets, we also compete with operators of alternative disposal and recycling facilities and with counties, municipalities and solid waste districts that maintain their own waste collection, recycling and disposal operations. We are also increasingly competing with companies which seek to use parts of the waste stream as feedstock for renewable energy supplies. Public entities may have financial advantages because of their ability to charge user fees or similar charges, impose tax revenues, access tax-exempt financing and in some cases utilize government subsidies.

Our GreenFiber insulation manufacturing joint venture with Louisiana-Pacific Corporation competes with other parties, principally national manufacturers of fiberglass insulation, that have substantially greater resources than GreenFiber does, which they could use for product development, marketing or other purposes to our detriment.

The waste management industry is undergoing fundamental change as traditional waste streams are increasingly viewed as renewable resources, which may adversely impact volumes and tipping fees at our landfills.

From fiscal 2003 year through fiscal year 2007, we executed a strategy to grow our landfill capacity, and since that time, we have focused on increasing free cash flow and generating an enhanced return on invested capital at our landfills. As we have continued to develop our landfill capacity, the waste management industry has increasingly recognized the value of the waste stream as a renewable resource, and accordingly, new alternatives to landfilling are being developed that seek to maximize the renewable energy and other resource benefits of waste. These alternatives may impact the demand for landfill space, which may affect our ability to operate our landfills at full capacity, as well as the tipping fees and prices that waste management companies generally, and that we in particular, can charge for utilization of landfill space. As a result, our revenues and operating margins could be adversely affected due to these disposal alternatives.

We incur substantial costs to comply with environmental requirements. Failure to comply with these requirements, as well as enforcement actions and litigation arising from an actual or perceived breach of such requirements, could subject us to fines, penalties, and judgments, and impose limits on our ability to operate and expand.

We are subject to potential liability and restrictions under environmental laws, including those relating to transportation, recycling, treatment, storage and disposal of wastes, discharges of pollutants to air and water, and the remediation of contaminated soil, surface water and groundwater. The waste management industry has been and will continue to be subject to regulation, including permitting and related financial assurance requirements, as well as to attempts to further regulate the industry, including efforts to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases. Our waste-to-energy facility is subject to regulations limiting discharges of pollutants into the air and water, and our solid waste operations are subject to a wide range of federal, state and, in some cases, local environmental, odor and noise and land use restrictions. If we are not able to comply with the requirements that apply to a particular facility or if we operate without the necessary approvals or permits, we could be subject to administrative or civil, and possibly criminal, fines and penalties,

19

Table of Contents

and we may be required to spend substantial capital to bring an operation into compliance, to temporarily or permanently discontinue activities, and/or take corrective actions, possibly including removal of landfilled materials. Those costs or actions could be significant to us and impact our results of operations, cash flows, and available capital. We may not have sufficient insurance coverage for our environmental liabilities, such coverage may not cover all of the potential liabilities we may be subject to and/or we may not be able to obtain insurance coverage in the future at reasonable expense, or at all.

Environmental and land use laws also impact our ability to expand and, in the case of our solid waste operations, may dictate those geographic areas from which we must, or, from which we may not, accept waste. Those laws and regulations may limit the overall size and daily waste volume that may be accepted by a solid waste operation. If we are not able to expand or otherwise operate one or more of our facilities because of limits imposed under such laws, we may be required to increase our utilization of disposal facilities owned by third parties, which could reduce our revenues and/or operating margins. In addition, we are required to obtain governmental permits to operate our facilities, including all of our landfills. Even if we were to comply with applicable environmental law, there is no guarantee that we would be able to obtain the requisite permits and, even if we could, that any permit (and any existing permits we currently hold) will be renewed or modified as needed to fit our business needs.

We have historically grown through acquisitions and may make additional acquisitions from time to time in the future, and we have tried and will continue to try to evaluate and limit environmental risks and liabilities presented by businesses to be acquired prior to the acquisition. It is possible that some liabilities, including ones that may exist only because of the past operations of an acquired business, may prove to be more difficult or costly to address than we anticipate. It is also possible that government officials responsible for enforcing environmental laws may believe an issue is more serious than we expect, or that we will fail to identify or fully appreciate an existing liability before we become legally responsible for addressing it. Some of the legal sanctions to which we could become subject could cause the suspension or revocation of a needed permit, prevent us from, or delay us, in obtaining or renewing permits to operate or expand our facilities, or harm our reputation. At April 30, 2011, we had recorded $5.1 million in environmental remediation liabilities for the estimated cost of our share of work associated with a consent order issued by the State of New York to remediate a scrap yard and solid waste transfer station owned by one of our acquired subsidiaries, including the recognition of accretion expense. There can be no assurance that the cost of such cleanup or our share will not exceed our estimates.

Our operating program depends on our ability to operate the landfills and transfer stations we own and lease. Localities where we operate generally seek to regulate some or all landfill and transfer station operations, including siting and expansion of operations. The laws adopted by municipalities in which our landfills and transfer stations are located may limit or prohibit the expansion of a landfill or transfer station, as well as the amount of waste that we can accept at the landfill or transfer station on a daily, quarterly or annual basis, and any effort to acquire or expand landfills and transfer stations typically involves a significant amount of time and expense. We may not be successful in obtaining new landfill or transfer station sites or expanding the permitted capacity of any of our current landfills and transfer stations. If we are unable to develop additional disposal and transfer station capacity, our ability to achieve economies from the internalization of our waste stream will be limited. If we fail to receive new landfill permits or renew existing permits, we may incur landfill asset impairment and other charges associated with accelerated closure.

In addition to the costs of complying with environmental laws and regulations, we incur costs defending against environmental litigation brought by governmental agencies and private parties. We are, and also may be in the future, a defendant in lawsuits brought by parties alleging environmental damage, personal injury, and/or property damage, or which seek to overturn or prevent the issuance of an operating permit or authorization, all of which may result in us incurring significant liabilities.

See also “Business—Regulation,” “Legal Proceedings” and Note 11(b) to our Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Our results of operations could continue to be affected by changing prices or market requirements for recyclable materials.

Our results of operations have been and may continue to be affected by changing purchase or resale prices or market requirements for recyclable materials. Our recycling business involves the purchase and sale of recyclable materials, some of which are priced on a commodity basis. The market for recyclable materials, particularly newspaper, corrugated containers, plastic and ferrous and aluminum metals, has been affected by unprecedented price decreases since October 2008, resulting in a severe impact on our results of operations. Although we have begun to experience some recovery in commodity pricing, such prices will continue to be volatile due to numerous factors beyond our control. Although we seek to limit our exposure to fluctuating commodity prices through the use of hedging agreements, floor price contracts and long-term supply contracts with customers and have sought to mitigate commodity price fluctuations by reducing the prices we pay for purchased materials or increasing tip fees at our facilities, these fluctuations have in the past contributed, and may continue to contribute, to significant variability in our period-to-period results of operations.

20

Table of Contents

Our business requires a high level of capital expenditures.

Our business is capital intensive. Capital expenditures related to growth activities, which were $2.8 million in fiscal year 2011, consist of costs related to development of new airspace, permit expansions and new recycling contracts, along with incremental costs of equipment and infrastructure added to further such activities. Capital expenditures related to maintenance activities, which were $52.4 million in fiscal year 2011, consist of landfill cell construction costs not related to airspace expansion, costs of normal permit renewals and replacement costs for equipment due to age or obsolescence. We must use a substantial portion of our cash flows from operating activities toward maintenance capital expenditures, which reduces our flexibility to use such cash flows for other purposes, such as reducing our indebtedness. Our capital expenditures could increase if we make acquisitions or further expand our operations or as a result of factors beyond our control, such as changes in federal, state or local governmental requirements. The amount that we spend on capital expenditures may exceed current expectations, which may require us to obtain additional funding for our operations or impair our ability to grow our business.

Our business is geographically concentrated and is therefore subject to regional economic downturns.

Our operations and customers are concentrated principally in New England and New York. Therefore, our business, financial condition and results of operations are susceptible to regional economic downturns and other regional factors, including state regulations and budget constraints and severe weather conditions. In addition, as we seek to expand in our existing markets, opportunities for growth within this region will become more limited and the geographic concentration of our business will increase. A substantial amount of the material delivered to our Chemung, Hakes, Hyland and McKean landfills consist of extractions from the Marcellus Shale formations in Western New York and Pennsylvania. These extractions are the subject of political opposition and there can be no assurance that they will not be halted or retried. In such an event, our revenues from these landfills would be materially adversely affected.

Our results of operations and financial condition may be negatively affected if we inadequately accrue for capping, closure and post-closure costs or by the timing of these costs for our waste disposal facilities.

We have material financial obligations relating to capping, closure and post-closure costs of our existing owned or operated landfills and will have material financial obligations with respect to any disposal facilities which we may own or operate in the future. Once the permitted capacity of a particular landfill is reached and additional capacity is not authorized, the landfill must be closed and capped, and post-closure maintenance started. We establish accruals for the estimated costs associated with such capping, closure and post-closure obligations over the anticipated useful life of each landfill on a per ton basis. We have provided and expect that we will in the future provide accruals for financial obligations relating to capping, closure and post-closure costs of our owned or operated landfills, generally for a term of 30 years after final closure of a landfill. Our financial obligations for capping, closure or post-closure costs could exceed the amounts accrued or amounts otherwise receivable pursuant to trust funds established for this purpose. Such a circumstance could result in significant unanticipated charges which would have an adverse impact on our business.

In addition, the timing of any such capping, closure or post-closure costs which exceed established accruals may further negatively impact our business. Since we will be unable to control the timing and amounts of such costs, we may be forced to delay investments or planned improvements in other parts of our business or we may be unable to meet applicable financial assurance requirements. Any of the foregoing would negatively impact our business and results of operations.

Fluctuations in fuel costs could affect our operating expenses and results.

The price and supply of fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events beyond our control, including among others, geopolitical developments, supply and demand for oil and gas, actions by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regional production patterns. Because fuel is needed to run our fleet of trucks, price escalations for fuel increase our operating expenses. In fiscal year 2011, we used approximately 5.7 million gallons of diesel fuel in our solid waste operations. We have a fuel surcharge program, based on a fuel index, to help offset increases in the cost of fuel, oil and lubricants arising from price volatility. This fee has been passed on to our customers where their contracts and competition conditions permit.

We could be precluded from entering into contracts or obtaining or maintaining permits or certain contracts if we are unable to obtain third party financial assurance to secure our contractual obligations.

Public solid waste collection, recycling and disposal contracts, obligations associated with landfill closure and the operation and closure of our waste-to-energy facility typically require performance or surety bonds, letters of credit or other means of financial assurance to secure our contractual performance. If we are unable to obtain the necessary financial assurance in sufficient amounts or at acceptable rates, we could be precluded from entering into additional municipal solid waste collection contracts or from obtaining or retaining landfill management contracts or operating permits. Any future difficulty in obtaining insurance could also impair our

21

Table of Contents

ability to secure future contracts conditioned upon having adequate insurance coverage. We currently obtain performance and surety bonds from Evergreen, in which we hold a 19.9% equity interest.

We may be required to write-off or impair capitalized costs or intangible assets in the future or we may incur restructuring costs or other charges, each of which could harm our earnings.

In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, we capitalize certain expenditures and advances relating to our acquisitions, pending acquisitions, landfills and development projects. In addition, we have considerable unamortized assets. From time to time in future periods, we may be required to incur a charge against earnings in an amount equal to any unamortized capitalized expenditures and advances, net of any portion thereof that we estimate will be recoverable, through sale or otherwise, relating to (1) any operation or other asset that is being sold, permanently shut down, impaired or has not generated or is not expected to generate sufficient cash flow, (2) any pending acquisition that is not consummated, (3) any landfill or development project that is not expected to be successfully completed, and (4) any goodwill or other intangible assets that are determined to be impaired.

In response to such charges and costs and other market factors, we may be required to implement restructuring plans in an effort to reduce the size and cost of our operations and to better match our resources with our market opportunities. As a result of such actions, we would expect to incur restructuring expenses and accounting charges which may be material. Several factors could cause a restructuring to adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. These include potential disruption of our operations, the development of our landfill capacity and recycling technologies and other aspects of our business. Employee morale and productivity could also suffer and result in unintended employee attrition. Any restructuring would require substantial management time and attention and may divert management from other important work. Moreover, we could encounter delays in executing any restructuring plans, which could cause further disruption and additional unanticipated expense.

Our revenues and our operating income experience seasonal fluctuations.

Our transfer and disposal revenues historically have been lower during the months of November through March. This seasonality reflects the lower volume of waste during the late fall, winter and early spring months primarily because:

·                  the volume of waste relating to construction and demolition activities decreases substantially during the winter months in the northeastern United States; and

·                  decreased tourism in Vermont, Maine and eastern New York during the winter months tends to lower the volume of waste generated by commercial and restaurant customers, which is partially offset by increased volume from the ski industry.

Since certain of our operating and fixed costs remain constant throughout the fiscal year, operating income is impacted by a similar seasonality. Particularly harsh weather conditions typically result in increased operating costs.

Our Recycling business experiences increased volumes of newspaper in November and December due to increased newspaper advertising and retail activity during the holiday season. GreenFiber experiences lower sales from April through July due to lower retail activity.

We may, in the future, attempt to divest or sell certain parts or components of our business to third parties which may result in lower than expected proceeds or losses or we may be unable to identify potential purchasers.

From time to time in the future, we may sell or divest certain other components of our business. These divestitures may be undertaken for a number of reasons, including to generate proceeds to pay down debt, or as a result of a determination that the specified asset will provide inadequate returns to us, or that the asset no longer serves a strategic purpose in connection with our business or if we determine the asset may be more valuable to a third party. The timing of such sales or divestures may not be entirely within our control. For example, we may need to quickly divest assets to satisfy immediate cash requirements, or we may be forced to sell certain assets prior to canvassing the market or at a time when market conditions for valuations or for financing for buyers are unfavorable, which would result in proceeds to us in an amount less than we expect or less than our assessment of the value of those assets. We also may not be able to identify buyers for certain of our assets, particularly given the difficulty that potential acquirers may face in obtaining financing, or we may face opposition from municipalities or communities to a disposition or the proposed buyer. Any sale of our assets could result in a loss on divestiture. Any of the foregoing would have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We previously announced our efforts to divest our waste to energy facility, Maine Energy. Public opposition to these efforts and the continued operation of Maine Energy have impacted our ability to sell the Maine Energy facility to date, and although we intend to continue to explore opportunities to divest Maine Energy in whole or in part in the future, there is no certainty that we will be able to divest Maine Energy.

22

Table of Contents

We may engage in acquisitions in the future with the goal of complementing or expanding our business, including developing additional disposal capacity. However, we may be unable to complete these transactions and, if executed, these transactions may not improve our business or may pose significant risks and could have a negative effect on our operations.

We have in the past, and we may in the future, make acquisitions in order to acquire or develop additional disposal capacity. These acquisitions may include “tuck-in” acquisitions within our existing markets, assets that are adjacent to or outside our existing markets, or larger, more strategic acquisitions. In addition, from time to time we may acquire businesses that are complementary to our core business strategy. We may not be able to identify suitable acquisition candidates. If we identify suitable acquisition candidates, we may be unable to negotiate successfully their acquisition at a price or on terms and conditions acceptable to us, including as a result of the limitations imposed by our debt obligations. Furthermore, we may be unable to obtain the necessary regulatory approval to complete potential acquisitions.

Our ability to achieve the benefits from any potential future acquisitions, including cost savings and operating efficiencies, depends in part on our ability to successfully integrate the operations of such acquired businesses with our operations. The integration of acquired businesses and other assets may require significant management time and resources that would otherwise be available for the ongoing management of our existing operations.

Any properties or facilities that we acquire may be subject to unknown liabilities, such as undisclosed environmental contamination, for which we would have no recourse, or only limited recourse, to the former owners of such properties. As a result, if a liability were asserted against us based upon ownership of an acquired property, we might be required to pay significant sums to settle it, which could adversely affect our financial results and cash flow.

In addition, the process of acquiring, developing and permitting additional disposal capacity is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. Moreover, the disposal capacity at our existing landfills is limited by the remaining available volume at our landfills and annual, quarterly and/or daily disposal limits imposed by the various governmental authorities with jurisdiction over our landfills. If we are unable to develop or acquire additional disposal capacity, our ability to achieve economies from the internalization of our waste stream will be limited and we may be required to increase our utilization of disposal facilities owned by third parties, which could reduce our revenues and/or our operating margins.

Efforts by labor unions to organize our employees could divert management attention and increase our operating expenses.

Labor unions regularly make attempts to organize our employees, and these efforts will likely continue in the future. Certain groups of our employees have chosen to be represented by unions, and we have negotiated collective bargaining agreements with these groups. The negotiation of collective bargaining agreements could divert management attention and result in increased operating expenses and lower net income (or increased net loss). If we are unable to negotiate acceptable collective bargaining agreements, we may be subject to union-initiated work stoppages, including strikes. Depending on the type and duration of any labor disruptions, our revenues could decrease and our operating expenses could increase, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. As of May 31, 2011, approximately 6.8% of our employees were represented by unions.

Our Class B common stock has ten votes per share and is held exclusively by John W. Casella and Douglas R. Casella.

The holders of our Class B common stock are entitled to ten votes per share and the holders of our Class A common stock are entitled to one vote per share. At December 31, 2010, an aggregate of 988,200 shares of our Class B common stock, representing 9,882,000 votes, were outstanding, all of which were beneficially owned by John W. Casella, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and his brother, Douglas R. Casella, a member of our Board of Directors. Based on the number of shares of common stock outstanding on May 31, 2011, the shares of our Class A common stock and Class B common stock beneficially owned by John W. Casella and Douglas R. Casella represent approximately 31.4% of the aggregate voting power of our stockholders. Consequently, John W. Casella and Douglas R. Casella are able to substantially influence all matters for stockholder consideration.

ITEM 1B.  UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2.  PROPERTIES

At May 31, 2011, we operated nine subtitle D landfills, four of which are owned and five of which are leased, one landfill permitted to accept construction and demolition materials that we own, 29 transfer stations, 19 of which are owned, six of which are leased and four of which are under operating contract, 31 solid waste collection facilities, 19 of which are owned and 12 of which are leased, 17 recycling processing facilities, 10 of which are owned, six of which are leased and one of which is under an operating contract, one waste-to-energy facility that we own, three landfill gas to energy facilities that we own, and we utilized 12 corporate office and other

23

Table of Contents

administrative facilities, two of which are owned and ten of which are leased (See Item 1—Business section of this Form 10-K for property information by operating segment).

ITEM 3.  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In the normal course of our business and as a result of the extensive governmental regulation of the solid waste industry, we are subject to various judicial and administrative proceedings involving state or local agencies.  In these proceedings, an agency may seek to impose fines or to revoke or deny renewal of an operating permit held by us.  From time to time, we may also be subject to actions brought by special interest or other groups, adjacent landowners or residents in connection with the permitting and licensing of landfills and transfer stations, or alleging environmental damage or violations of the permits and licenses pursuant to which we operate.  In addition, we are party to various claims and suits pending for alleged damages to persons and property, alleged violations of certain laws and alleged liabilities arising out of matters occurring during the normal operation of the waste management business.

We offer no prediction of the outcome of any of the proceedings or negotiations described below.  We are vigorously defending each of these lawsuits and claims.  However, there can be no guarantee we will prevail or that any judgments against us, if sustained on appeal, will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

North Country Landfill Expansion

Our subsidiary, North Country Environmental Services, Inc. (“NCES”) is located in Bethlehem, New Hampshire, and is currently permitted to accept municipal solid waste and C&D material from a wide geographic region.  As discussed below, NCES projects that its permitted capacity will last into fiscal year 2018.

NCES and the Town of Bethlehem (the “Town”) have been in prolonged zoning litigation over NCES’s expansion of the landfill.  Currently, there are two court actions between NCES and the Town: a declaratory judgment action initiated by NCES on September 12, 2001, and a zoning enforcement action initiated by the Town on February 2, 2009.  In the declaratory judgment action, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that NCES has all necessary local approvals to expand its landfill within a 51-acre area, but remanded to the New Hampshire Superior Court issues related to the validity of the Town’s zoning ordinance as it relates to a proposed landfill expansion outside that 51-acre area.  In the enforcement action, the Town has requested an injunction requiring NCES to remove a leachate force main, a landfill gas line, storm water drainage lines, catch basins and outfalls, a landfill liner anchor trench, and storm water detention ponds that are located outside the 51-acre area.  It has also sought a civil penalty of two hundred seventy five dollars per day from the date of filing, plus costs and attorneys’ fees.  NCES and the Town filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the validity of the ordinance the Town is attempting to enforce, and the court denied both motions in October 2009.  On February 5, 2010, the court granted NCES’s motion to consolidate the remanded action with the enforcement action. The trial of the consolidated actions was set for January 2011, but the court continued the trial in early December 2010.  A new trial date has been set for March 2012.  In January 2011, the court denied three partially dispositive motions filed by the Town.  The court held a hearing on a fourth dispositive motion filed by NCES on February 14, 2011.  If granted, NCES’s motion would invalidate two amendments of the Town’s zoning ordinance, thereby resolving both the enforcement action and two counts of the declaratory judgment action in NCES’s favor.

On April 29, 2010, NCES filed an application with NHDES to modify its Stage IV permit to develop nearly all of the remaining undeveloped capacity under that permit.   On August 27, 2010, NHDES granted the permit modification, thereby authorizing NCES to develop State IV, Phase 2, of the landfill, comprising approximately one million cubic yards of disposal capacity.  There were two appeals filed with the New Hampshire Waste Management Council.  One appeal was filed by a group of local citizens and seeks to invalidate the approval.  The other appeal was filed by a company with which NCES has certain agreements relating to the operation of the gas management system at the landfill and the use of the landfill gas and sought modification of the approval with respect to the criteria governing the operation of the gas management system.  NCES has sought dismissal of the first appeal on the grounds that the appellants lack standing to bring it.  That motion is pending.  The second of these appeals has since been voluntarily dismissed.  On February 14, 2011, NHDES issued construction approval for State IV, Phase 2-A, of the landfill, and construction commenced shortly thereafter.  The group of local citizens who had appealed the August 26, 2010, permit modification also appealed the construction approval to the Waste Management Council.  NCES has sought dismissal of this appeal on the grounds it was untimely filed.  That motion is pending.  The filing of an appeal of a NHDES approval does not suspend or otherwise affect the approval.  Accordingly, NCES has commenced and continues construction activities at the Landfill.  No hearing has been set on these appeals.

New York Department of Labor Prevailing Wage Dispute

We have been involved in an inquiry by the New York Department of Labor (“DOL”) regarding the applicability of certain state “Prevailing Wage” laws pertaining to work being undertaken by us at certain landfill sites operated by us in New York State that are owned by municipalities (Chemung, Ontario and Clinton Counties). On August 21, 2009, the DOL issued a letter opinion with regard to cell construction and capping work and other activities at these landfills, concluding that:  (1) the construction activity necessary for

24

Table of Contents

the recovery, use and sale of gases created by the landfill is not a public work project to which the Prevailing Wage Law applies; (2) cell construction and capping activities are public work where that work takes place on publicly owned lands in the furtherance of the operation of a publicly accessible landfill facility; (3) construction on lands acquired by Casella which adjoin a County-owned landfill are akin to a privately owned and operated landfill and would not be subject to the Prevailing Wage Law.  A settlement with the DOL was reached to resolve this matter, which required the payment of increased wages and benefits to employees of Rifenburg Construction, Inc. and Casella Construction, Inc., in an aggregate amount of $0.5 million.  No penalties or interest were required.  These amounts were accrued and capitalized as part of the related landfill asset, and will be amortized prospectively over the remaining life of the landfill as tons of waste are placed at each landfill site.  This matter is now closed.

Southbridge Landfill Site Assignment Appeal

On June 9, 2008, the Southbridge Board of Health (“Southbridge BOH”) issued a Decision and Statement of Findings pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws ch.111, §§150A and 150 A1/2 and 310 CMR 16.00 (“2008 Site Assignment”) granting our subsidiary, Southbridge Recycling and Disposal Park, a minor modification to the existing site assignment for the Southbridge Sanitary Landfill (the “Landfill”).  The 2008 Site Assignment allows Southbridge Recycling and Disposal Park, subject to numerous conditions, to accept into the Landfill up to 0.4 million tons of waste per year without regard to geographic origin.

On or about July 14, 2008, the Sturbridge Board of Health (“Sturbridge BOH”), an abutting municipality to Southbridge, together with several 10-citizen groups, filed a complaint in Worcester County Superior Court contesting the 2008 Site Assignment (the “Appeal”). The Appeal named as defendants the Southbridge BOH, its individual members and Southbridge Recycling and Disposal Park. On August 21, 2008, Southbridge Recycling and Disposal Park reached a settlement with the Sturbridge BOH, pursuant to which Southbridge Recycling and Disposal Park has funded an escrow account to be controlled by the Sturbridge BOH in the amount of fifty thousand dollars. The Sturbridge BOH withdrew as a party to the Appeal on August 22, 2008.

On December 11, 2009, the Worcester County Superior Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint following briefing and a court hearing. Plaintiffs appealed that decision, and we have filed a joint motion with the Southbridge BOH to dismiss that appeal, contending that the appeal was filed late and is subject to dismissal as a matter of law.  On November 19, 2010, all parties received Notice from the Appeals Court Clerk’s Office that this appeal will be heard by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, upon its own motion.  It appears that this hearing will occur no sooner than September, 2011.  While it is too early to assess the outcome of the appellate action, Southbridge Recycling and Disposal Park will continue to aggressively defend the appellate action.  We believe it is remote that this appellate action could result in a threat to the validity of the 2008 site assignment.

In July 2008, Southbridge Recycling and Disposal Park filed an application with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MADEP”) for a minor modification to the existing landfill operating permit, to allow Southbridge Recycling and Disposal Park to operate in a manner consistent with the Site Assignment (conversion from 0.2 million tons per year of construction and demolition debris to 0.2 million tons per year of any combination of construction and demolition debris and municipal solid waste, with no geographic limitations).  The MADEP issued a “provisional” final permit granting this minor modification on April 23, 2010, and invited public comment through May 19, 2010.  On May 28, 2010, the MADEP issued a final permit granting the minor modification to Southbridge Recycling and Disposal Park’s existing operating permit (the “Conversion Permit”).  On or about August 1, 2010, despite its prior settlement, the Board of Health of the Town of Sturbridge filed a complaint in Worcester Superior Court challenging MADEP’s issuance of the Conversion Permit.  Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  On January 27, 2011, the Court heard oral argument on defendants’ motions to dismiss, and on February 4, 2011, the Court granted those motions, dismissing the complaint.

CRMC Bethlehem, LLC Litigation

CRMC Bethlehem, LLC and Commonwealth Bethlehem Energy, LLC (collectively, “CRMC”), filed claims in the US District Court for the District of New Hampshire against NCES.  CRMC sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages in the amount of approximately $1.5 million.  CRMC alleged that NCES had breached the terms of a Gas Lease and Easement Agreement by and between CRMC and NCES, entered into on September 10, 1998, as amended on March 1, 2000 (the “Gas Lease”).  CRMC alleged that NCES had inappropriately interfered with CRMC rights pursuant to the Gas Lease to develop a landfill gas-to-energy project to be sited on the Landfill.  CRMC also had alleged that NCES violated the terms of an Operations and Maintenance Agreement in operating the landfill gas management system.  NCES denied these allegations, and vigorously defended against these claims.

On or about March 23, 2011, we elected, in a separate transaction, to purchase from CRMC the gas rights subject to the terms of the Gas Lease, for the total sum of $1.8 million, $1.2 million of which was paid at closing on or about April 11, 2011, and the remainder of which will be paid in five installments of $0.1 million on the anniversary of the closing date.  This litigation was dismissed with prejudice as part of the purchase of the CRMC gas rights.

25

Table of Contents

Vermont Attorney General Matter

We entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance (“AOD”) with the Vermont Attorney General’s Office (“AG”) on or about May 17, 2002, concerning, among other matters, the conduct of our business in Vermont as related to certain contract terms applicable to our small commercial container customers.  On March 23, 2010, we were a recipient of a Civil Investigative Subpoena (“CIS”) issued by the AG requesting information and documents from us regarding our compliance with the AOD.  We provided all information requested by the AG in a timely manner.  However, in the course of responding to the AG’s requests, we discovered that some of our small commercial container customers were mistakenly issued contracts which did not strictly comply with the terms of the AOD.  This error occurred during a one (1) year period starting in 2009 and ending in 2010, and only a portion of our small commercial container customers in Vermont were affected.  We immediately terminated the use of these contracts, and we intend to issue revised contracts to those affected customers.  We have not had any occasion to enforce the terms of any of these contracts.

On or about April 25, 2011, the AG asserted that we violated the terms of the AOD, and that we pay civil penalties of approximately $4.8 million.  The AG also requested that the AOD be extended beyond its initial expiration date in 2012, and that certain of our business practices with respect to our small commercial container customers be discontinued.

We do not agree with the AG regarding the enforceability and terms of the AOD or that the AOD term should be extended.  We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the assertions of the AG.

Town of Seneca Matter

Casella Waste Services of Ontario, LLC operates the Ontario County Landfill and recycling facilities located in the Town of Seneca, New York, pursuant to an Operation, Management and Lease Agreement with Ontario County (the “OMLA”), and a Host Agreement with the Town of Seneca (the “Host Agreement”).

On May 6, 2011, the Town of Seneca filed a complaint in Ontario County Supreme Court naming Ontario County (the “County”) and various Casella entities (collectively, “Casella”) as defendants (the “Seneca Litigation”), alleging that both Casella and the County have breached their obligations to the Town under both the Host Agreement and the OMLA.  The Town’s complaint alleges a variety of contract breaches stemming from Casella’s decision to pay the County stipulated in-lieu fees for certain projects described in the OMLA rather than constructing those projects.  The complaint demands, among other things, payment of $3.8 million.

We firmly believe the Town’s position is without legal merit.  We will defend the Seneca Litigation aggressively.

Penobscot Energy Recovery Company Matter

On May 31, 2011 we received formal written notice from the Penobscot Energy Recovery Company (“PERC”) that it is submitting to arbitration what it alleges is a disputed invoice in the amount of approximately $3.2 million dated March 2, 2011.  PERC states that Pine Tree Waste, Inc., our subsidiary, has failed since 2001 to honor a “put-or-pay” waste disposal arrangement.  We have been investigating the merit of this claim since receipt of the invoice, and will aggressively defend against this claim in arbitration and/or the courts.

Environmental Liability

We are subject to liability for environmental damage, including personal injury and property damage, that our solid waste, recycling and power generation facilities may cause to neighboring property owners, particularly as a result of the contamination of drinking water sources or soil, possibly including damage resulting from conditions existing before we acquired the facilities. We may also be subject to liability for similar claims arising from off-site environmental contamination caused by pollutants or hazardous substances if we or our predecessors arrange or arranged to transport, treat or dispose of those materials.

On December 20, 2000, the State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) issued an Order on Consent (“Order”) which named Waste-Stream, Inc. (“WSI”), a Casella subsidiary, General Motors Corporation (“GM”) and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (“NiMo”) as Respondents.  The Order required that the Respondents undertake certain work on a 25-acre scrap yard and solid waste transfer station owned by WSI, including the drafting of a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (the “Study”).  A draft of the Study was submitted to DEC in January 2009 (followed by a final report in May 2009).  The Study estimates that the undiscounted costs associated with implementing the preferred remedies will be approximately $10.2 million and it is unlikely that any costs relating to onsite remediation will be incurred until fiscal year 2012.  On February 28, 2011, the DEC issued a Proposal Remedial Action Plan (the “PRAP”) for the site and accepted public comments on the proposed remedy through March 29, 2011.  We submitted extensive comments.  In early April the DEC issued the final Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the site.  The ROD was subsequently rescinded for failure to respond to all submitted comments.  The preliminary ROD, however, estimated that the estimated present worth cost associated with implementing the preferred remedies would be approximately $12.1 million. The DEC issued the final ROD in June 2011 with proposed remedies consistent with the earlier ROD that had been rescinded.

WSI is jointly and severally liable for the total cost to remediate and we initially expected to be responsible for approximately 30% upon implementation of a cost-sharing agreement with NiMo and GM. Based on these estimates, we recorded an environmental

26

Table of Contents

remediation charge of $2.8 million in third quarter of fiscal year 2009.  In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009, we recognized an additional charge of $1.5 million, representing an additional 15% of the estimated costs, in recognition of the deteriorating financial condition and eventual bankruptcy filing of GM.  In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010, we recognized an additional charge of $0.3 million based on changes in the expected timing of cash outflows.  Based on the estimated costs in the rescinded ROD, and changes in the estimated timing of cash flows, at April 30, 2011 we recorded an environmental remediation charge of $0.5 million. Such charges could be significantly higher if costs exceed estimates.  We inflate these estimated costs in current dollars until the expected time of payment and discount the cost to present value using a risk free interest rate (2.31%).  At April 30, 2011 and April 30, 2010, we have recorded $5.1 million and $4.6 million, respectively, related to this liability including the recognition of $0.1 million and $0.2 million of accretion expense in the fiscal years ended April 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

ITEM 4.  REMOVED AND RESERVED

PART II

ITEM 5.  MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Our Class A common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Market (the “NASDAQ Stock Market”) under the symbol “CWST”. The following table sets forth the high and low sale prices of our Class A common stock for the periods indicated as quoted on the NASDAQ Stock Market.

On May 31, 2011, the high and low sale prices per share of our Class A common stock as quoted on the NASDAQ Stock Market were $6.37 and $6.05, respectively. As of May 31, 2011 there were approximately 500 holders of record of our Class A common stock and two holders of record of our Class B common stock. There is no established trading market for our Class B common stock.

For purposes of calculating the aggregate market value of the shares of common stock held by non-affiliates, as shown on the cover page of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have assumed that all the outstanding shares of Class A common stock were held by non-affiliates except for the shares beneficially held by directors and executive officers and funds represented by them.

No dividends have ever been declared or paid on our common stock and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Our credit facility and indentures restrict the payment of dividends on common stock. The information required by Item 201(d) of Regulation S-K is included in Part III of this Form 10-K.

Stock Performance Graph

The following performance graph and related information shall not be deemed “soliciting material” or “filed” with the SEC, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference into such filing.

27

Table of Contents

The stock performance graph below compares the percentage change in cumulative stockholder return on Class A common stock for the period from April 30, 2006 through April 30, 2011, with the cumulative total return on The NASDAQ Stock Market (U.S. & Foreign) Index and our Industry Peer Group on The NASDAQ Stock Market. The stock performance graph assumes the investment on April 30, 2006 of $100.00 in our Class A common stock at the closing price on such date, in The NASDAQ Stock Market (U.S. & Foreign) Index and our Industry Peer Group, and that dividends are reinvested. No dividends have been declared or paid on the Class A common stock.

*$100 invested on 4/30/06 in stock or index, including reinvestment of dividends. Fiscal year ending April 30.

28

Table of Contents

(1)                                  The peer group is comprised of securities of Waste Connections, Inc. and WCA Waste Corp.  Waste Connections, Inc. was added to the peer group in fiscal year 2011 to replace Waste Services, Inc. which merged with another public company that is not traded on the NASDAQ Stock Market.

ITEM 6.  SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA

The following selected consolidated financial and operating data set forth below with respect to our consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for the fiscal years ended April 30, 2011, 2010 and 2009, and the consolidated balance sheets as of April 30, 2011 and 2010 are derived from the Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-K. The consolidated statements of operations and cash flows data for the fiscal years ended April 30, 2008 and 2007, and the consolidated balance sheet data as of April 30, 2008, 2007 and 2006 are derived from previously filed Consolidated Financial Statements after giving effect to discontinued operations. The data set forth below should be read in conjunction with the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

29

Table of Contents

(1)                                  Computed on the basis described in Note 1(j) to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

(2)                                  Working capital deficit, net is defined as current assets, excluding cash and cash equivalents, minus current liabilities.

ITEM 7.  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and notes thereto, and other financial information, included elsewhere in this Form 10-K. This discussion contains forward-looking statements and involves numerous risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements.

Recent Developments

On January 23, 2011, we entered into a purchase and sale agreement and related agreements to sell non-integrated FCR recycling assets and select intellectual property assets to a new company formed by Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P. and Intersection, LLC.  Pursuant to these agreements, we divested our non-integrated recycling assets located outside our core operating region of New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and northern Pennsylvania, including 17 MRF’s, one transfer station and certain related intellectual property assets.  Following the transaction, we retained four integrated MRFs located in our core operating regions.  As a part of the disposition, we also entered into a ten year commodities marketing agreement with the Purchaser to market 100% of the tonnage from three of our remaining integrated MRFs.

We completed the transaction on March 1, 2011 for $134.2 million in gross cash proceeds, including an estimated $3.8 million working capital and other purchase price adjustment, which is subject to further adjustment, as defined in the purchase and sale agreement.  After netting transaction costs and cash taxes payable in conjunction with the divestiture, net cash proceeds amounted to approximately $123.0 million.  We used the net cash proceeds from the divestiture and borrowings under our 2009 Revolver to repay the 2009 Term Loan in full. In addition, at the closing of the transaction, Jim Bohlig, an executive officer and Board Member of ours resigned from our company and joined the Purchaser as CEO.

30

Table of Contents

On February 7, 2011, we completed the offering of $200.0 million aggregate principal amount of 7.75% senior subordinated notes due 2019.  The 2019 Notes are fully and unconditionally guaranteed on a senior subordinated basis by substantially all of our existing and future domestic restricted subsidiaries that guaranteed our 2009 Senior Secured Credit Facility and that currently guarantee our 2011 Revolver and our 11% senior second lien notes due 2014 ( the “Second Lien Notes”).  Interest is payable semi-annually in arrears on February 15 and August 15 of each year, commencing on August 15, 2011.  We used the net proceeds from the offering of the 2019 Notes, together with other available funds, to refinance our Senior Subordinated Notes and to pay related transaction costs.

On March 18, 2011, we completed the refinancing of our 2009 Senior Secured Credit Facility with the 2011 Revolver, consisting of a $227.5 million revolving credit and letter of credit facility. The 2011 Revolver is due March 18, 2016. If we fail to refinance our Second Lien Notes by March 1, 2014, the maturity date for the 2011 Revolver shall be accelerated to March 31, 2014. We have the right to request, at our discretion, an increase in the amount of the 2011 Revolver by an aggregate amount of $182.5 million, subject to certain conditions set forth in the 2011 Revolver agreement.

Company Overview

Founded in 1975 with a single truck, Casella Waste Systems, Inc. is a vertically-integrated solid waste, recycling, and resource management services company. We provide resource management expertise and services to residential, commercial, municipal, and industrial customers, primarily in the areas of solid waste collection, transfer, disposal recycling, and organics services. We operate in six states— including Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, Maine, and Pennsylvania.

As of May 31, 2011, we owned and/or operated 31 solid waste collection operations, 29 transfer stations, 17 recycling facilities, nine Subtitle D landfills, three landfill gas to energy facilities, one landfill permitted to accept construction and demolition materials, and one waste-to-energy facility. In addition, we hold a 50% interest in GreenFiber, a joint venture that manufactures, markets and sells cellulose insulation made from recycled fiber. We also hold a 8.2% interest in RecycleRewards, a company that markets an incentive based recycling service, and a 19.9% interest in Evergreen, a surety company which provides surety bonds to secure contractual performance for municipal solid waste collection contracts and landfill closure and post-closure obligations.

Overview of Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Results

Revenues and operating income (loss) based on our segments for the fiscal years ended April 30, 2011 and 2010, are as follows (in millions):

For the year ended April 30, 2011, we reported revenues of $466.1 million, an increase of $8.5 million, or 1.9%, from $457.6 million for the year ended April 30, 2010. Solid waste revenues decreased 0.4% with lower disposal and waste-to-energy prices accounting for a 0.3% decrease, lower collection volumes of 1.4%, a 0.3% decline in commodity prices, 1.7% related to a divestiture in the Eastern region, and 2.3% decline from the closure of a landfill.  These decreases were partially offset by 4.5% positive effect of disposal, recycling, and waste-to-energy volumes, 0.4% from collection and recycling price increases, 0.2% higher commodity volume, and 0.5% from acquisitions. Major accounts revenues included in Other increased 4.4%, in fiscal year 2011 compared to the prior year primarily due to higher volumes of 4.7% offset by 0.3% price decline. As a percentage of total Recycling revenues, Recycling revenues increased 22.8% in fiscal year 2011 compared to the prior year with 23.5% related primarily to a steady uptrend in commodity price offset by a 1.3% decline in commodity volumes.

Eastern region revenues decreased $10.0 million, or 5.6%, in fiscal year 2011 compared to the prior year primarily due to the closure of a landfill, a divestiture, negative collection and processing and recycling volume, and a decline in waste-to-energy price and commodity volume.  These declines were offset by collection, processing and recycling, and disposal price improvement and increased disposal, waste-to-energy, processing and recycling volumes, and a tuck-in acquisition.  Western region revenues for fiscal year 2011 increased $8.5 million, or 4.2%, compared to the prior year due to higher disposal, commodity, and recycling volumes,

31

Table of Contents

improved collection and commodity pricing, and acquisitions.  These increases were offset by decreases in disposal price as well as a decline in collection volumes.

Operating income for fiscal year 2011 was $28.6 million compared to operating income of $32.8 million in fiscal year 2010. Our operating results were negatively impacted by the $3.7 million impairment on long-lived assets, increases in cost of operations and general and administration expenses, both in dollars and as a percentage of revenue when compared to fiscal year 2010, along with decreases in collection and recycling revenues due to lower volumes and a divestiture. Operating results were positively impacted by increased disposal, processing and recycling, and major accounts revenues, lower depreciation and landfill amortization due to the closure of the Pinetree landfill, a $3.0 million gain on bargain purchase related to the McKean landfill business, and a $3.5 million gain on sale of assets in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011. On a segment basis, operating income for the Eastern region decreased $4.9 million due primarily to a $10.0 million decrease in revenues combined with the $3.7 million impairment on long-lived assets and increased operating costs associated with maintenance and labor, offset partially by lower landfill amortization. Operating income for the Western region decreased $1.5 million despite the fact that revenues increased $8.5 million year over year and a $3.0 million gain on bargain purchase related to the McKean landfill business was recorded in fiscal year 2011. The decrease in operating income was associated with increases in cost of operations, general and administration expenses, and landfill amortization, which outweighed the increases in revenue and the gain on bargain purchase.

We recorded net income of $38.4 million for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2011 compared to a net loss of $13.9 million in fiscal year 2010, primarily due to the fiscal 2011 gain on disposal of discontinued operations, net of taxes, amounting to $43.6 million.  The fiscal year 2011 operating income discussed above was offset by a $7.4 million loss on debt refinancing, as well as declining performance from our unconsolidated subsidiary, GreenFiber. Our pre-tax loss was $27.9 million in fiscal year 2011 compared to a pre-tax loss of $13.8 million in fiscal year 2010.

Net cash provided by operations was $47.1 million in fiscal year 2011 down from $64.1 million in fiscal year 2010. Fiscal year 2011 net income adjusted for the gain on disposal of discontinued operations and income (loss) from discontinued operations totaled ($3.7) million. This resulted in an increase to net income of $39.9 million when compared to the fiscal year 2010 total of $2.2 million. Depreciation and amortization was lower in fiscal year 2011 by $5.4 million over the prior year. Loss on debt refinancing was higher in fiscal year 2011 by $6.9 million over the prior year. An asset impairment charge resulted in a $3.7 million increase year over year.  The McKean landfill bargain purchase gain resulted in a $3.0 million decrease year over year. Net cash provided by operations was further decreased by $5.5 million in cash outflows associated with changes in assets and liabilities, net of effects of acquisitions and divestitures.

Our capital requirements include acquisitions, fixed asset purchases and capital expenditures for landfill development and cell construction, as well as site and cell closure. Our capital expenditures were $55.2 million in fiscal year 2011 compared to $52.8 million in fiscal year 2010.

Acquisitions and Divestitures

We completed the divestiture of our Great Northern Recycling Canadian operation in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 for a settlement amount of $0.4 million in cash.  In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010, we also completed the divestiture of our domestic brokerage operations for a settlement amount of $1.4 million in cash.  This resulted in a gain on disposal of discontinued operations (net of tax) amounting to $1.1 million and $0.1 million for fiscal years 2010 and 2009, respectively.

In the quarter ended July 31, 2010, we completed the sale of certain assets in Southeastern Massachusetts.  Total consideration amounted to $7.8 million with cash proceeds of 7.5 million.  We recorded a gain on sale of assets of $3.5 million.

Our contract with our Recycling Cape May operation expired in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010.  This operation was treated as a discontinued operation.

During the third quarter of fiscal year 2011, we completed the sale of the assets of the Trilogy Glass business for cash proceeds of $1.8 million.  A loss amounting to $0.1 million (net of tax) was recorded to gain on disposal of discontinued operations in fiscal year 2011.

We completed the divestiture of our non-integrated FCR recycling assets and select intellectual property assets in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011 for $134.2 million in gross proceeds. This resulted in a gain on disposal of discontinued operations (net of tax) amounting to $43.7 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011.

32

Table of Contents

The operating results of these operations, including those related to prior years, have been reclassified from continuing to discontinued operations in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.  Revenues and income (loss) before income taxes (in millions) attributable to discontinued operations for fiscal years 2011, 2010 and 2009 are as follows (in millions):

In fiscal year 2011 we acquired two solid waste hauling operations in exchange for $1.1 million in cash and $0.3 million in notes payable.  Also in fiscal year 2011, we acquired the McKean County landfill business in Pennsylvania in exchange for $0.7 million in cash and the assumption of $1.4 million in liabilities.  We acquired the McKean County landfill business out of bankruptcy proceedings and recognized a bargain purchase gain of $3.0 million based on the amount by which the fair value of assets acquired exceeded the purchase price consideration.  In fiscal year 2010, we acquired two solid waste hauling operations. These transactions were in exchange for total consideration of $1.6 million, including $0.9 million in cash and $0.6 million in notes payable to the seller and liabilities assumed. In fiscal year 2009, we acquired three solid waste hauling operations in exchange for $2.4 million in cash consideration.

General

Revenues

Revenues in our Eastern and Western regions are attributable primarily to fees charged to customers for solid waste disposal and collection, landfill, landfill gas-to-energy, waste-to-energy, transfer and recycling services. We derive a substantial portion of our collection revenues from commercial, industrial and municipal services that are generally performed under service agreements or pursuant to contracts with municipalities. The majority of our residential collection services are performed on a subscription basis with individual households. Landfill, waste-to-energy facility and transfer customers are charged a tipping fee on a per ton basis for disposing of their solid waste at our disposal facilities and transfer stations. Recycling revenues consist of revenues from the sale of recyclable commodities and operations and maintenance contracts of recycling facilities for municipal customers. We also generate and sell electricity under a contract at our waste-to-energy facility and at certain of our landfill facilities.

Our cellulose insulation business is conducted through a 50/50 joint venture with Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, and accordingly, we recognize half of the joint venture’s net income (loss) on the equity method in our results of operations. We also have a 8.2% interest in a company that markets an incentive-based recycling service and a 19.9% interest in a surety company which provides surety bonds to us to secure contractual performance for municipal solid waste collection contracts and landfill closure and post-closure obligations. We accounts for these investments under the cost method of accounting. Also, in the “Other” segment, we have ancillary revenues including major customer accounts.

33

Table of Contents

Our revenues are shown net of inter-company eliminations. We typically establish our inter-company transfer pricing based upon prevailing market rates. The table below shows, for the periods indicated, the percentages and dollars (in millions) of revenue attributable to services provided.

The dollar decrease in collection revenues in fiscal year 2011 compared to fiscal year 2010 is primarily due to lower volumes and a divestiture partially offset by price increases and the effect of acquisitions. Disposal revenues decreased slightly in fiscal year 2011 due to the closure of a landfill, a divestiture, and a decline in disposal price offset by higher volumes.  Waste-to-energy volumes increased in fiscal year 2011 but declines in price resulted in a revenue decline for the power generation operations.  The dollar increase in processing and recycling revenues in fiscal year 2011 compared to fiscal year 2010 is primarily due to stronger volume and price increases.  Major accounts revenues improved in fiscal year 2011 with higher volumes offset slightly by price decline.  As noted above, Recycling revenues were positively impacted as a result of a sharp improvement in average commodity prices in fiscal year 2011 compared to fiscal year 2010 offset to a lesser extent by commodity volume decline.

Operating Expenses

Cost of operations includes labor, tipping fees paid to third-party disposal facilities, fuel, maintenance and repair of vehicles and equipment, workers’ compensation and vehicle insurance, the cost of purchasing materials to be recycled, third party transportation expense, district and state taxes, host community fees and royalties. Cost of operations also includes accretion expense related to landfill capping, closure and post closure, leachate treatment and disposal costs and depletion of landfill operating lease obligations.

General and administration expenses include management, clerical and administrative compensation and overhead, professional services and costs associated with marketing, sales force and community relations efforts.

Depreciation and amortization expense includes depreciation of fixed assets over the estimated useful life of the assets using the straight-line method, amortization of landfill airspace assets under the units-of-consumption method, and the amortization of intangible assets (other than goodwill) using the straight-line method. We amortize landfill retirement assets through a charge to cost of operations using a straight-line rate per ton as landfill airspace is utilized. The amount of landfill amortization expense related to airspace consumption can vary materially from landfill to landfill depending upon the purchase price and landfill site and cell development costs. We depreciate all fixed and intangible assets, other than goodwill, to a zero net book value, and do not apply a salvage value to any fixed assets.

We capitalize certain direct landfill development costs, such as engineering, permitting, legal, construction and other costs associated directly with the expansion of existing landfills. Additionally, we also capitalize certain third party expenditures related to development projects and pending acquisitions, such as legal and engineering costs. We routinely evaluate all such capitalized costs, and expense those costs related to projects not likely to be successful. Internal and indirect landfill development and acquisition costs, such as executive and corporate overhead, public relations and other corporate services, are expensed as incurred.

We will have material financial obligations relating to capping, closure and post-closure costs of our existing landfills and any disposal facilities which we may own or operate in the future. We have provided, and will in the future provide, accruals for these future financial obligations based on engineering estimates of consumption of permitted landfill airspace over the useful life of any such landfill. There can be no assurance that our financial obligations for capping, closure or post-closure costs will not exceed the amount accrued and reserved or amounts otherwise receivable pursuant to trust funds.

34

Table of Contents

Results of Operations

The following table sets forth for the periods indicated the percentage relationship that certain items from our Consolidated Financial Statements bear in relation to revenues.

Fiscal Year 2011 versus Fiscal Year 2010

Revenues.  Revenues increased $8.5 million, or 1.9%, to $466.1 million in fiscal year 2011 from $457.6 million in fiscal year 2010. Solid waste revenues decreased $1.3 million with lower disposal and waste-to-energy prices accounting for $1.1 million of the decrease, lower collection volumes of $5.3 million, a $1.1 million decline due to a reductions in commodity prices, a $6.4 million decrease related to a divestiture in the Eastern region, and a $8.8 million decline from the closure of a landfill.  These decreases were partially offset by $17.4 million positive effect of disposal, recycling, and waste-to-energy volumes, $1.5 million from collection and recycling price increases, $0.6 million higher commodity volume, and $1.8 million from acquisitions. Major accounts revenues increased $1.7 million in fiscal year 2011 compared to the prior year primarily due to higher volumes of $1.8 million offset by $0.1 million price decline. As a percentage of total Recycling revenues, Recycling revenues increased $8.1 million in fiscal year 2011 compared to the prior year with $7.9 million related primarily to the uptrend in commodity price and a $0.2 million increase in commodity volumes.

Cost of operations.  Cost of operations increased $14.1 million, or 4.6%, to $317.5 million in fiscal year 2011 from $303.4 million in fiscal year 2010. Cost of operations as a percentage of revenues increased to 68.1% in fiscal year 2011 from 66.3% in the prior year. The dollar increase was due to higher revenues, but more specifically, cost of operations increased due to higher cost of purchased materials associated with increased prices, higher fuel costs associated with rising gas prices, higher maintenance and hauling costs, increased depletion of landfill operating lease obligations, and a lower gain on sale of equipment.  These cost increases were partially offset by various cost reductions associated with other operational costs such as insurance along with registration and permits.

General and administration.  General and administration expenses increased $6.5 million, or 11.3%, to $64.0 million in fiscal year 2011 compared to $57.5 million in fiscal year 2010, and increased as a percentage of revenues to 13.7% in fiscal year 2011 from 12.5% in fiscal year 2010. The dollar increase was primarily due to higher expenses associated with salaries, employee awards and bonuses, advertising, legal, and consulting.  Specifically, employee awards and bonuses increased due to a fourth quarter discretionary bonus of $3.5 million. These costs were partially offset by reduced bad debt expense and lower equity compensation costs in fiscal year 2011 associated with a change to the expected performance attainment levels related to performance stock units.

Depreciation and amortization.  Depreciation and amortization expense decreased $5.3 million, or 8.3%, to $58.3 million in fiscal year 2011 from $63.6 million in fiscal year 2010. Landfill amortization expense decreased by $3.6 million primarily due to lower volumes and the closure of the Pinetree facility. Depreciation expense decreased $1.9 million year over year due to timing and fixed asset sales.  Depreciation and amortization expense as a percentage of revenue decreased to 12.5% in fiscal year 2011 from 13.9% in fiscal year 2010.

35

Table of Contents

Environmental remediation charge.  In fiscal year 2011, we recorded an environmental remediation charge of $0.5 million associated with changes in expected cash flows for its share of work associated with a consent order issued by the State of New York to remediate the scrap yard and solid waste transfer station owned by Waste-Stream, Inc., a subsidiary of ours in the Western region. In fiscal year 2010, we recorded a $0.3 million charge for this remediation work. Note 11(d) to our Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Interest expense, net.  Net interest expense increased $1.6 million, or 3.6% to $45.9 million in fiscal year 2011 from $44.3 million in fiscal year 2010. This increase was attributable to higher average interest rates associated with our capital structure which was put in place on July 9, 2009. This increase was partially offset by a reduction of interest expense associated with the refinancing of the 2009 Revolver in March 2011, the full paydown of our 2009 Term Loan in March 2011, and the offering of the 2019 Notes in February 2011. Net interest expense, as a percentage of revenues, increased to 9.8% in fiscal year 2011 from 9.7% in fiscal year 2010.

Loss from equity method investments.  The loss from equity method investments in fiscal year 2011 relates to our 50% joint venture interest in GreenFiber. GreenFiber reported a loss for fiscal year 2011, of which our share was $4.1 million, compared to a loss in fiscal year 2010 of which our share was $2.7 million. GreenFiber continues to be negatively impacted by the overall slowdown in the housing market.

Loss on debt refinancing.  The loss in fiscal year 2011 of $7.4 million was attributable to the non-cash write-off of unamortized financing costs associated with the repayment of financing lease obligations and other costs associated with fiscal year 2011 refinancing efforts, which include the write off of deferred financing costs associated with the 2009 Term Loan and Senior Subordinated Notes,  the write-off of the discount and premium associated with the 2009 Term Loan and Senior Subordinated Notes, a gain associated with the discount on the tender of the Senior Subordinated Notes, and a loss associated with the consent payment on the Senior Subordinated Notes. The loss in fiscal year 2010 of $0.5 million was due to the write-off of unamortized financing costs associated with the former senior credit facility, which was amended in the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

Other income.  Other income remained unchanged at $0.8 million in fiscal years 2011 and 2010. Other income in fiscal years 2011 and 2010 include a dividend of $0.5 million from our investment in Evergreen and the balance represents fees charged to customers and other miscellaneous non-operational income.

(Benefit) provision for income taxes.  (Benefit) provision for income taxes from continuing operations decreased $26.4 million in fiscal year 2011 to ($24.2) million from $2.2 million in fiscal year 2010. The effective tax rate changed to 86.7% in the year ended April 30, 2011 from (16.2)% in fiscal year 2010. The rate variance between the periods is due mainly to the current year tax benefit from the utilization of net operating loss carryforwards and other deferred tax assets resulting from the gain on the disposal of discontinued operations.

(Loss) income from discontinued operations/Gain on disposal of discontinued operations.  (Loss) income from discontinued operations decreased $2.5 million in fiscal year 2011 to ($1.5) million from $1.0 million. Gain on disposal of discontinued operations increased $42.4 million in fiscal year 2011 to $43.6 million from $1.2 million.  Fiscal year 2011 discontinued operations were the result of two separate transactions; the sale of non-integrated FCR recycling assets and select intellectual property assets and the sale of the Trilogy Glass business.  We completed the divestiture of our non-integrated recycling assets and select intellectual property assets in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011 for $134.2 million in gross proceeds. This resulted in a gain on disposal of discontinued operations (net of tax) amounting to $43.7 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011. We completed the sale of the assets of the Trilogy Glass business for cash proceeds of $1.8 million.  A loss amounting to $0.1 million (net of tax) was recorded to gain on disposal of discontinued operations in fiscal year 2011.

We also completed the divestiture of our Great Northern Recycling Canadian operation in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 for a settlement amount of $0.4 million in cash. In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010, we also completed the divestiture of our domestic brokerage operations for a settlement amount of $1.4 million in cash.  We had previously accounted for these transactions as assets under contractual obligation. This resulted in a gain on disposal of discontinued operations (net of tax) amounting to $1.1 million and $0.1 million for fiscal years 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Our contract for our Recycling Cape May operation expired in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010. This operation has been treated as a discontinued operation.

36

Table of Contents

The operating results of the operations discussed above, including those related to prior years, have been reclassified from continuing to discontinued operations in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

Fiscal Year 2010 versus Fiscal Year 2009

Revenues.  Revenues decreased $25.3 million, or 5.2%, to $457.6 million in fiscal year 2010 from $482.9 million in fiscal year 2009. Solid waste revenues decreased $20.6 million. The decrease was related to overall lower volumes of $26.7 and a $4.8 million decline in disposal, waste-to-energy, and commodity prices. The decrease was partially offset by $9.1 million in price increases in our collections and processing and recycling operations, $0.9 million favorable waste-to-energy commodity volume, and $1.0 million of revenues from the rollover effect a tuck-in acquisition.  Major Accounts revenues increased $4.0 million in fiscal year 2010 compared to the prior year with $3.9 million related to higher and $0.1 million price increases. As a percentage of total Recycling revenues, Recycling revenues decreased $8.7 million in fiscal year 2010 compared to the prior year with $6.8 million related primarily to a decrease in commodity volume and a $1.9 million decline in commodity prices.

Cost of operations.  Cost of operations decreased $19.2 million, or 6.0% to $303.4 million in fiscal year 2010 from $322.6 million in fiscal year 2009. Cost of operations as a percentage of revenues decreased to 66.3% in fiscal year 2010 from 66.8% in the prior year. The dollar decrease is primarily due to lower direct labor costs, vehicle maintenance and fuel costs. These dollar decreases were partially offset by higher hauling, accretion and third party disposal expenses, and by a benefit in the prior year period of $0.8 million related to the reimbursement from the Town of Southbridge for previously paid and expensed closure and post closure costs at the Southbridge landfill site in the Eastern region.

General and administration.  General and administration expenses decreased $5.7 million, or 9.0%, to $57.5 million in fiscal year 2010 compared to $63.2 million in fiscal year 2009, and decreased as a percentage of revenues to 12.5% in fiscal year 2010 from 13.1% in fiscal year 2009. The dollar decrease is primarily due to lower costs associated with reduced salary, travel, legal, consulting and bad debt expenses and the current year benefit of a general and administrative charge in fiscal year 2009 of $1.2 million for severance and reorganization. These costs were offset by higher incentive compensation costs in fiscal year 2010.

Depreciation and amortization.  Depreciation and amortization expense decreased $4.8 million, or 7.0%, to $63.6 million in fiscal year 2010 from $68.4 million in fiscal year 2009. Landfill amortization expense decreased by $4.8 million primarily due to lower volumes and the planned closure of our Colebrook facility in the Western region and Pinetree facility in the Eastern region. Depreciation expense and amortization expense remained consistent year over year. Depreciation and amortization expense as a percentage of revenue decreased to 13. 9% in fiscal year 2010 from 14.2% in fiscal year 2009.

Environmental remediation charge.  In fiscal year 2010, we recorded an environmental remediation charge of $0.3 million associated with changes in expected cash flows for its share of work associated with a consent order issued by the State of New York to remediate the scrap yard and solid waste transfer station owned by Waste-Stream, Inc., a subsidiary of ours in the Western region.  In fiscal year 2009, we recorded $4.4 million for this remediation work.

Goodwill impairment charge.  In fiscal year 2009 we performed our annual assessment of goodwill impairment by applying a fair value test to identified reporting units. Our step one analysis indicated that the fair value of its Eastern region reporting segment was less than its carrying value and proceeded to a step two analysis, which included valuing the tangible and intangible assets and liabilities’ of the Eastern region to determine the implied fair value of goodwill.  The result of this assessment indicated that the implied fair value of goodwill was zero.  As a result we recognized a non-cash charge of $55.3 million to write-off the entire carrying value of the Eastern region goodwill.

Asset impairment charge.  In fiscal year 2009, we wrote-off $0.4 million in deferred costs associated with certain development projects deemed no longer viable.

Interest expense, net.  Net interest expense increased $11.1million, or 33.5% to $44.3 million in fiscal year 2010 from $33.1 million in fiscal year 2009. This increase is attributable to higher average interest rates with our capital structure which was put in place on July 9, 2009. Net interest expense, as a percentage of revenues, increased to 9.7% in fiscal year 2010 from 6.9% in fiscal year 2009.

Loss from equity method investments.  The loss from equity method investments in fiscal year 2010 relates to our 50% joint venture interest in GreenFiber. GreenFiber reported a loss for fiscal year 2010, of which our share was $2.7 million, compared to a loss in fiscal year 2009, of which our share was $2.2 million.  In fiscal year 2010, GreenFiber continued to be negatively impacted by the overall slowdown in the housing market.

Other income.  Other income in fiscal year 2010 remained unchanged at $0.8 million in fiscal years 2010 and 2009.  Other income in fiscal year 2010 includes a dividend of $0.5 million from our investment in Evergreen and the balance represents a gain on the sale of assets and certain marketable securities and fees charged to customers.

37

Table of Contents

(Benefit) provision for income taxes.  Provision for income taxes decreased $4.0 million in fiscal year 2010 to $2.2 million from $6.2 million in fiscal year 2009. The effective tax rate changed to (16.2)% in fiscal year 2010 from (9.5)% in fiscal year 2009. The rate variance between the periods is due mainly to changing our assessment of the realizability of deferred tax assets in the fourth quarter of 2009, resulting in a $24.1 million increase in the valuation allowance in 2009, and due to the impairment of non-deductible goodwill in 2009.  The remaining rate variance is primarily a result of an increase in the valuation allowance in 2010 due to the book loss for the year and the provision of deferred tax liabilities related to indefinite lived intangible asset amortization for tax purposes.

(Loss) income from discontinued operations/Gain on disposal of discontinued operations. We terminated our operation of MTS Environmental, a soils processing operation in the Eastern region, in fiscal year 2008. A charge was recorded amounting to $3.2 million associated with the abandonment. Included in this charge was the write off of the carrying value of assets along with costs associated with vacating the site. A loss amounting to $1.9 million (net of tax) has been recorded as loss on disposal of discontinued operations in fiscal year 2008. In fiscal year 2010, we recorded a true-up of certain liabilities associated with the site amounting to a gain of forty five thousand dollars.  As of April 30, 2008, we also deemed our Recycling Greenville operation as held for sale and classified this operation as a discontinued operation. The divestiture was completed in June 2008 for cash proceeds of $0.7 million. A loss amounting to $0.03 million (net of tax) was recorded as loss on disposal of discontinued operations in fiscal year 2009

We also completed the divestiture of our Great Northern Recycling Canadian operation in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 for a settlement amount of $0.4 million in cash. In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010, we also completed the divestiture of our domestic brokerage operations for a settlement amount of $1.4 million in cash.  We had previously accounted for these transactions as assets under contractual obligation. This resulted in a gain on disposal of discontinued operations (net of tax) amounting to $1.1 million and $0.1 million for fiscal years 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Our contract for our Recycling Cape May operation expired in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010. This operation has been treated as a discontinued operation.

The operating results of the operations discussed above, including those related to the current year, have been included in discontinued operations in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our business is capital intensive. Our capital requirements include acquisitions, fixed asset purchases and capital expenditures for landfill development and cell construction, as well as site and cell closure. Our capital expenditures are broadly defined as pertaining to either growth or maintenance activities. Growth capital expenditures are defined as costs related to development of new airspace, permit expansions and new recycling contracts along with incremental costs of equipment and infrastructure added to further such activities. Growth capital expenditures include the cost of equipment added directly as a result of new business, as well as expenditures associated with increasing infrastructure to increase throughput at transfer stations and recycling facilities. Growth capital expenditures also include those outlays associated with acquiring landfill operating leases, which do not meet the operating lease payment definition, but which were included as a commitment in the successful bid. Maintenance capital expenditures are defined as landfill cell construction costs not related to expansion airspace, costs for normal permit renewals and replacement costs for equipment due to age or obsolescence.

We had a net working capital deficit of $13.3 million at April 30, 2011 compared to a deficit of $10.2 million at April 30, 2010.  Net working capital comprises current assets, excluding cash and cash equivalents, minus current liabilities.  The $3.1 million decrease in net working capital at April 30, 2011 was primarily due to a $4.4 million positive working capital reduction due to the sale of non-integrated FCR recycling assets and select intellectual property assets. Net working capital related to continuing operations increased by $1.3 million year over year, somewhat offsetting the loss, with the primary drivers being a $3.4 million increase in accounts receivable, net, a $1.3 million decrease in refundable income taxes, and a $1.3 million decrease in other current assets, a $7.4 million increase in accounts payable, a $3.8 million increase in taxes payable, a $2.0 million decrease in accrued interest, and a $6.1 million decrease in current accrued capping, closure and post closure costs.

Fiscal Year 2011 Financing Activities