Former Shoosmith Landfill Owners Vow to Fight Criminal Charges and Return to Texas

Attorneys representing the former owners of the bankrupt Shoosmith landfill in Chesterfield County, Virginia, announced that their clients strongly dispute ongoing criminal allegations that they knowingly and willfully abandoned the site. The defense response arrived Friday following a judicial ruling in Chesterfield that established secured bonds and cleared the path for the men to travel home.

Fred Nichols and Larry McGee departed court Friday afternoon, preparing to mount a defense against charges connected to the alleged abandonment of the landfill and violations of Virginia water control laws. Their upcoming court appearance is scheduled for Nov. 16, where both defendants face potential prison sentences exceeding 10 years and fines of up to $100,000 if convicted.

Bond Modifications and Travel Restrictions Set by Court

Friday’s courtroom proceedings resolved an immediate dispute concerning whether Nichols and McGee could leave Virginia while their legal proceedings remain pending. Both individuals previously turned themselves in overnight at the Chesterfield County Jail, initially securing release on $25,000 unsecured bonds that barred them from exiting Virginia.

During Friday’s hearing, a Chesterfield judge adjusted those conditions, granting each defendant a $50,000 secured bond. Once those financial bonds are officially posted, Nichols and McGee are permitted to return to their homes in Texas.

Dale Mullen, an attorney representing Nichols, defended the decision to allow his client to travel home. Both businessmen who need to get home to take care of their health concerns and their families, very reasonable thing and very standard to release them on a recognizance bond with certain conditions, Mullen stated.

Even after returning to Texas, the defendants will remain under strict judicial oversight. Bond parameters dictate that Nichols and McGee cannot leave the United States and are prohibited from exiting Texas without explicit court permission, except when traveling to Virginia for mandatory court appearances.

Environmental Scrutiny and Financial Allegations

The criminal charges stem from years of environmental issues at the Shoosmith landfill facility. Records indicate that potentially toxic liquids and gases leaked from the site, eventually seeping into Swift Creek.

Following the facility’s bankruptcy filing, a court-appointed trustee characterized conditions at the property as a potential environmental catastrophe. In earlier court documentation, attorneys representing the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality alleged that Nichols and McGee pocketed millions of dollars rather than investing that money into necessary infrastructure and remediation at the landfill.

When questioned about those specific financial allegations outside the courtroom, Mullen offered a direct denial. We dispute that. We look forward to defending these charges, Mullen said.

Regarding the trustee’s characterization of the landfill, Mullen directed attention toward the facility’s regulatory record. He noted that during 17 years of operation prior to the installation of specific gas harvesting wells, the location received only a single notice of violation. Everyone carries with them a presumption of innocence, and we look forward to that, the opportunity to address that in the court. With regards to the DEQ record, I think the record speaks for itself, Mullen added.

Defense Challenges Corporate Liability and Legal Standard

Legal counsel for the former owners also questioned the foundational basis for attaching criminal liability to their clients’ corporate roles. Mullen emphasized that the landfill was owned by a corporate entity, with Nichols and McGee serving as officers and directors of that entity.

Photo: newsbreak.com

Questioning how executive actions within a corporate structure translated into criminal violations, Mullen stated, Best I can tell, is that the officers and directors, through application of a federal court-approved process, somehow violated the Virginia statute. We dispute that.

William Dinkin, serving as counsel for McGee, focused on the strict legal thresholds the Commonwealth must meet to secure a conviction on the abandonment charge. Dinkin stressed that prosecutors must prove a knowing and willful departure from responsibilities rather than mere operational misfortune.

Remember, what the Commonwealth has to prove is that there was a knowing and willful abandonment, and that’s a really high standard, Dinkin explained. It doesn’t mean that things went wrong that were unfortunate that weren’t intended. It requires willful abandonment, and I think that that’s a significant standard. It’s a high standard, and we look forward to defending this case.

With secured bond conditions awaiting completion and legal teams preparing their arguments, the case moves toward the November hearings as state regulators and defense attorneys ready for further proceedings.