Commitments and Contingencies

Warranty — We are subject to warranty claims for products that fail to perform as expected due to design or manufacturing deficiencies. Customers generally require their outside suppliers to guarantee or warrant their products and bear the cost of repair or replacement of such products. Depending on the terms under which we supply products to our customers, a customer may hold us responsible for some or all of the repair or replacement costs of defective products when the product supplied did not perform as represented. Our policy is to reserve for estimated future customer warranty costs based on historical trends and current economic factors.

The following represents a summary of the warranty provision for the three months ended March 31, 2017:



Balance — December 31, 2016	$	5,552
Provision for new warranty claims	602
Change in provision for preexisting warranty claims	(36		)
Deduction for payments made	(1,283		)
Currency translation adjustment	18
Balance — March 31, 2017	$	4,853

Leases — We lease office, warehouse and manufacturing space and certain equipment under non-cancelable operating lease agreements that generally require us to pay maintenance, insurance, taxes and other expenses in addition to annual rental fees. The anticipated future lease costs are based in part on certain assumptions and we monitor these costs to determine if the estimates need to be revised in the future. As of March 31, 2017, our equipment leases did not provide for any material guarantee of a specified portion of residual values.

Litigation — We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to workers' compensation claims, OSHA investigations, employment disputes, service provider disputes, intellectual property disputes, and those arising out of alleged defects, breach of contracts, product warranties and environmental matters.

Management believes that we maintain adequate insurance or we have established reserves for issues that are probable and estimable in amounts that are adequate to cover reasonable adverse judgments not covered by insurance. Based upon the information available to management and discussions with legal counsel, it is the opinion of management that the ultimate outcome of the various legal actions and claims that are incidental to our business are not expected to have a material adverse impact on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows; however, such matters are subject to many uncertainties and the outcomes of individual matters are not predictable with any degree of assurance.

Consulting Contract Litigation

On November 15, 2015, Bouchet & Co., a consulting firm, filed a lawsuit against the Company captioned Bouchet & Co. v. Commercial Vehicle Group, Inc., Case Number 1:15-CV-10333 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging two causes of actions. First, the plaintiff asserted a breach of contract claim, alleging that the Company breached an agreement signed on October 2, 2014 (the “Agreement”) and refused to pay plaintiff’s fees as set forth in the Agreement. In the breach of contract claim, the plaintiff sought compensatory damages in the amount of $2.5 million. Second, the plaintiff asserted a promissory fraud cause of action. Under this claim, the plaintiff alleged that the Company committed fraud by promising to pay a fee to the plaintiff that the Company had no intention of paying. In the promissory fraud claim, the plaintiff sought punitive damages, post judgment interest, and any other costs awarded by the Court. On October 24, 2016, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. Specifically, the Court held that the Company was liable for breach of contract, but reserved the issue of damages for the jury. The Court also denied the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the promissory fraud claim, holding that liability on that claim would be a matter for the jury at trial. On May 4, 2017, the parties reached a settlement agreement whereby the Company paid $3.3 million to the plaintiff in return for a dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice and a complete release of any and all claims arising from the relationship giving rise to the claims. The settlement is reflected in accrued liabilities and other as of March 31, 2017.