13.	Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

Asbestos cases

Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002 began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management’s opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company’s insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro’s products. In those cases where evidence has been produced, the Company’s experience has been that the exposure levels are low and the Company’s position has been that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through December 31, 2016 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $1.1 million which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel expenses; $1.0 million have been paid by the Company’s insurers. The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately $30,000.

Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 229 cases pending against the Company as of December 31, 2016 (with Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases), as compared with 221 cases that were pending as of January 1, 2016. During 2016, 75 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 63 cases and settled 4 cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Valero

One of our subsidiaries, Fisher-Klosterman, Inc. (“FKI”), was a defendant in a products liability lawsuit filed in Harris County, Texas on August 23, 2010 by three Valero refining companies (“Valero Suit”). The plaintiffs claimed that FKI (and its co-Defendants) used an allegedly defective refractory material included in cyclones it supplied to Valero that caused damages to refineries they own and operate. Plaintiffs claimed to have suffered property damages, including catalyst loss, regenerator repair costs, replacement part costs, damage to other property and business interruption loss. During 2014, the Company reached a settlement with the plaintiffs for $0.5 million and, accordingly, recorded a corresponding charge to operations. In addition, the Company reached an agreement with a supplier to recover $0.2 million related to this matter. The recovery was also recorded during 2014. The Company’s insurer, Valley Forge Insurance Company (“Valley Forge”) who had paid for FKI’s defense in this matter, initiated a new case in the Southern District of Ohio against the Company in October 2014 seeking, among other things, recoupment of past legal costs paid. Valley Forge claims that it did not have an obligation to defend FKI and is entitled to recoup all amounts paid to defend FKI. In April 2016, the Court rejected Valley Forge’s position on the duty to defend as contrary to Ohio law. However, the Court found that, if Valley Forge could prove that FKI breached its duty to cooperate in defending the Valero Suit, Valley Forge may be relieved of its duty to defend to some extent. Valley Forge moved for reconsideration of the Court’s Opinion and Order in May 2016 and the motion is pending. The Southern District of Ohio subsequently ruled in 2016 that the Company’s insurer did have a duty to defend the Company. The Company is vigorously disputing this claim, including the pursuit of counterclaims against the insurer. FKI maintains that it fully complied with its duty to cooperate at all times.

Viron

On October 3, 2014, Viron International (“Viron”) filed a complaint against us and our subsidiary, the Kirk and Blum Manufacturing Company (“Kirk & Blum”), in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (the “Court”) seeking damages against us and Kirk & Blum for alleged breach of contract. After a trial in 2015, the Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that provide that we breached our contract with Viron and that Viron is entitled to damages in the amount of approximately $0.6 million plus attorneys’ fees. Additionally, the Court concluded that we are not entitled to an offset for the invoiced amounts of $0.2 million not paid by Viron under the contract. In 2015, we settled with Viron for $0.5 million, $0.3 million was previously accrued in 2014, and the remaining $0.2 million was recorded as expense and paid in 2015.

PMFG shareholder lawsuits

Since the public announcement of the proposed Mergers on May 4, 2015, CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II, PMFG and the members of the PMFG Board have been named as defendants in three lawsuits related to the Mergers, which were filed by alleged stockholders of PMFG on May 17, 2015, June 29, 2015 and July 17, 2015. The first filed lawsuit, which is a derivative action that also purports to assert class claims, was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the “Texas Lawsuit”). The second and third filed lawsuits, which are class actions, were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have now been consolidated into a single action (the “Delaware Lawsuit,” and collectively with the Texas Lawsuit, the “Lawsuits”). In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs generally allege that the Mergers fail to properly value PMFG, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement, and that those breaches were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, (a) that the PMFG Board breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Mergers for inadequate consideration and pursuant to a tainted process by (1) agreeing to lock up the Mergers with deal protection devices that, notwithstanding the ability of PMFG to solicit actively alternative transactions, prevent other bidders from making a successful competing offer for PMFG, (2) participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the PMFG Board and management are divided, and (3) relying on financial and legal advisors who plaintiffs allege were conflicted; (b) that those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II and PMFG, and (c) that the disclosure provided in the registration statement filed by CECO on June 9, 2015 was inadequate in a number of respects.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, (a) to enjoin the defendants from completing the Mergers on the agreed-upon terms, (b) rescission, to the extent already implemented, of the Merger Agreement or any of the terms therein, and (c) costs and disbursements and attorneys’ and experts’ fees, as well as other equitable relief as the courts deem proper.

Effective as of August 23, 2015, PMFG and the other defendants entered a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit regarding the settlement of the Delaware Lawsuit. In connection with this memorandum of understanding, PMFG agreed to make certain additional disclosures to PMFG’s stockholders in order to supplement those contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus. After PMFG enters into a definitive agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit, the proposed settlement will be subject to notice to the class, Court approval, and, if the Court approves the settlement, the settlement, as outlined in the memorandum of understanding, will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the Delaware Lawsuit, including all claims relating to the decision to enter into the Mergers, entry of the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith including any such claims against CECO, Merger Sub I or Merger Sub II, but did not affect any stockholder’s rights to pursue appraisal rights. It is expected that the resolution of the Delaware Lawsuit will also resolve the Texas Lawsuit, which was stayed voluntarily by the plaintiff, but placed on Texas court’s two-week docket for a non-jury trial on August 15, 2016. On May 11, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement and setting a hearing on July 13, 2016 during which it would consider whether to enter an order granting final approval of the proposed settlement.

On September 1, 2016, the plaintiffs withdrew from the settlement and filed a notice of dismissal of their claims with prejudice. On September 2, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs’ request and dismissed their claims with prejudice. The Court retained jurisdiction to consider any applications for “mootness” based attorneys’ fees and expenses from plaintiffs and/or the counsel for the objector. Briefing on the attorneys’ fees request is complete, and it remains pending.

Summary

The Company is also a party to routine contract and employment-related litigation matters and routine audits of state and local tax returns arising in the ordinary course of its business.

The final outcome and impact of open matters, and related claims and investigations that may be brought in the future, are subject to many variables, and cannot be predicted. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, and related guidance, we record accruals for estimated losses relating to claims and lawsuits when available information indicates that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. The Company expenses legal costs as they are incurred.

We are not aware of pending claims or assessments, other than as described above, which may have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.