Litigation, Contingencies and Commitments

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

Litigation, Contingencies and Commitments [Abstract]

Litigation, Contingencies and Commitments

Note 13—Litigation, Contingencies and Commitments

Reference is made to Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements contained in Hallwood Group’s annual report on

Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Litigation. From time to time, the Company, its subsidiaries, certain of its affiliates and others have been named as defendants in lawsuits relating to various transactions in which it or its affiliated entities participated. Although the Company does not believe that the results of any of these matters are likely to have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows, except as described below, it is possible that any of the matters could result in material liability. In addition, Hallwood Group has spent and may continue to spend significant amounts in professional fees and other associated costs in connection with certain of these matters. Hallwood Group expenses professional fees and other costs associated with litigation matters as incurred.

In July 2007, Nextec Applications, Inc. filed Nextec Applications, Inc. v. Brookwood Companies Incorporated and The Hallwood Group Incorporated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY No. CV 07-6901) claiming that Brookwood infringed five United States patents pertaining to internally-coated webs. In October 2007, The Hallwood Group Incorporated was dismissed from the lawsuit. Nextec later added additional patents to the lawsuit. After a number of motions, only two patents remained in the action and were being asserted against the process and machine for making defendants’ Agility Storm-Tec X-Treme and Eclipse Storm-Tec X-Treme fabrics, which constitute two levels of the Military’s Extended Cold Weather Clothing System. Nextec was seeking a permanent injunction as well as damages in an amount to be determined at trial. After a five week trial that ended on June 1, 2012, the Court ruled from the bench that, while Nextec’s patents were valid, Brookwood had not infringed any of the patents in the lawsuit. On July 20, 2012, Nextec filed a motion requesting that the Court either correct/amend its finding of non-infringement or grant a new trial, which the Court subsequently denied. The Court’s Order and Final Judgment was issued June 21, 2012. Nextec has since filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Brookwood subsequently filed a notice of cross-appeal. Separately, and prior to trial, Brookwood filed requests for reexamination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the remaining patent claims at issue in the litigation. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted the reexamination requests and issued first office actions rejecting all the reexamined patent claims as unpatentable over the prior art of record. With respect to one of the patents currently under examination, the Patent Office has received Nextec’s responsive arguments and subsequently issued a second office action finalizing its initial rejection of all the claims. With respect to the second patent, the Patent Office has received Nextec’s responsive arguments and is currently evaluating them. Nextec will have an opportunity to appeal any final decision by the Patent Office.

Hallwood Energy. In March 2009, Hallwood Energy, HEM (the general partner of Hallwood Energy) and Hallwood Energy’s subsidiaries, filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The cases were adjudicated in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, in In re Hallwood Energy, L.P., et al Case No. 09-31253. The Company was only an investor in and creditor of Hallwood Energy. The bankruptcy filing did not include the Company or Brookwood.

In October 2009, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed a plan of reorganization of the debtors that, among other things, extinguished the Company’s interest in Hallwood Energy’s general partnership and limited partnership interests. In addition, Hallwood Energy’s convertible notes, including those held by the Company, were subordinated to recovery in favor of Hall Phoenix/Inwood, Ltd (“HPI”), the secured lender to and an investor in Hallwood Energy.

The confirmed plan of reorganization in the Hallwood Energy bankruptcy proceeding also created a creditors’ trust that was authorized to pursue various claims against the Company, its officers, directors and affiliates and Hallwood Energy’s officers and directors, including claims assigned to the creditors’ trust by HPI.

Adversary Proceeding. On March 30, 2009, Hallwood Energy filed an adversary proceeding against the Company seeking a judgment for $3,200,000. The case was originally styled as Hallwood Energy, L.P. v. The Hallwood Group Incorporated, Adversary No. 09-03082, and was brought in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. This dispute arose in connection with an Acquisition and Farmout Agreement entered into between Hallwood Energy and FEI Shale, L.P. (“FEI”), a subsidiary of Talisman Energy, Inc., in June 2008, The Company and Hallwood Energy entered into an Equity Support Agreement dated June 9, 2008 under which the Company agreed, under certain conditions, to contribute to Hallwood Energy up to $12,500,000, in consideration for which the Company would receive equity or debt securities of Hallwood Energy. As of February 25, 2009, the Company had contributed $9,300,000 to Hallwood Energy pursuant to the Equity Support Agreement. On that date, Hallwood Energy demanded that the Company fund the $3,200,000, which the Company did not do.

Following the commencement of litigation, HPI and FEI intervened in the lawsuit and filed their respective complaints in intervention. In their complaints, they alleged that the Company’s failure to fund $3,200,000 under the Equity Support Agreement damaged Hallwood Energy in an amount in excess of $3,200,000. FEI claimed that, in addition to not paying the $3,200,000, the Company defrauded FEI and tortiously interfered with its rights under the Acquisition and Farmout Agreement, and it sought approximately $38,000,000 in additional damages. In their second amended complaint, HPI and the trustee for the creditors’ trust contended that the additional damages were at least $20,000,000 based on the alleged failure of the Company to fund the $3,200,000, which allegedly caused FEI to not fund $20,000,000 due under the Farmout Agreement between Hallwood Energy and FEI. HPI and the trustee also asserted that the Company was liable for exemplary damages of $100,000,000 on account of its failure to fund the last $3,200,000 under the Equity Support Agreement. In the second amended complaint, HPI and the trustee had named as additional defendants Hallwood Family (BVI) L.P., Hallwood Investments Limited, Hallwood Company Limited, the Hallwood Trust, Hallwood Financial Limited and Brookwood Companies Incorporated contending that the additional defendants are liable to the plaintiffs under allegations requesting the remedy of substantive consolidation. On May 5, 2010, the Court dismissed with prejudice the substantive consolidation claim and abuse of the bankruptcy process against all parties, resulting in the Company remaining as the sole Defendant. In light of the Court’s disposition of the theories advanced in the second amended complaint, the adversary proceeding was styled as Ray Balestri, Trustee of the Hallwood Energy I Creditors’ Trust, as successor in interest to Hallwood Energy, L.P., Plaintiffs and FEI Shale L.P. and Hall Phoenix/Inwood Ltd., Plaintiffs in Intervention vs. The Hallwood Group Incorporated, Defendant; Adversary No. 09-03082-SGJ (the “Adversary Proceeding”). The trial took place over a 13 day period from October 2010 to December 2010 and was followed with the Bankruptcy Court’s proposed findings in July 2011.

On July 25, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court issued the Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment Awarding Various Monetary Damages (the “Proposed Findings”). The court proposed that the United States District Court award damages of $3,200,000 for the Company’s alleged breach of the Equity Support Agreement, to be allocated among the three plaintiffs and damages of $15,485,714 to FEI, for the Company’s alleged tortious interference with the Farmout Agreement, and, in the alternative, for the Company’s alleged fraud in failing to disclose to FEI that the Company allegedly did not intend to fund the remaining obligation under the Equity Support Agreement, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest and attorneys’ fees as may be requested and awarded pursuant to subsequent motions and hearings. With respect to the issue of fraud by nondisclosure, the Bankruptcy Court proposed a finding that the Company (i) failed to disclose a belief that the Equity Support Agreement could legally be treated as terminated, (ii) failed to disclose its alleged intention not to fund the final $3,200,000 under the Equity Support Agreement and (iii) orchestrated an alleged misimpression that Hallwood Energy was not contemplating bankruptcy while planning Hallwood Energy’s bankruptcy and how to use FEI’s funding in a Hallwood Energy bankruptcy against FEI’s wishes. The court also proposed that the District Court reject HPI and the trustee’s claim that the Company’s failure to fund the $3,200,000 caused FEI to not fund $20,000,000 under the Farmout Agreement, that the District Court reject HPI and the trustee’s claim that the Company tortiously interfered with certain contractual rights, and that the District Court reject HPI and the trustee’s claim for exemplary or punitive damages.

As a result of Proposed Findings, taking into consideration the Company’s objections to the Proposed Findings, the Company recorded a litigation reserve charge for $7,500,000 at September 30, 2011. As no new information had become available regarding the outcome of the litigation, the Company did not believe the reserve related to the Adversary Proceeding should be changed at December 31, 2011. This accrued reserve of $7,500,000 was reported in the Company’s balance sheet under “Hallwood Energy matters—Litigation reserve” for those periods, in addition to the $3,201,000 that was previously recorded in connection with the Equity Support Agreement, for a total reserve of $10,701,000 at December 31, 2011 for the Adversary Proceeding. This reserve amount was established in consultation with the Company’s litigation counsel in the Hallwood Energy litigation, based on their best judgment of the probabilities of success related to, among other factors, the objections to be filed by the Company on its possible appeal of the District Court’s Judgment.

On April 24, 2012, the United States District Court entered a final judgment (the “Judgment”) substantially adopting the Proposed Findings. Based upon the monetary damages (including prejudgment and postjudgment interest, legal fees and court costs) awarded in the Judgment, the Company, in consultation with the Company’s litigation counsel, recorded an additional charge of $13,200,000 at March 31, 2012 in its statement of operations and balance sheet as an accrual under Hallwood Energy matters – Litigation Reserve. Accordingly, the total reserve at March 31, 2012 for the Adversary Proceeding was $23,901,000. The Company satisfied the Judgment, including prejudgment and postjudgment interest, in two payments; $3,774,000 on May 4, 2012 and $17,947,000 on May 9, 2012. In addition, the Company will be required to pay certain attorneys’ fees incurred by the plaintiffs. At September 30, 2012, the litigation reserve for the Hallwood Energy Matters is $2,079,000. The parties settled the amount of court costs for approximately $101,000, which was paid in August 2012. While the Company will be required to pay some additional amount of money to the plaintiffs as compensation for their attorney fees related to the breach of contract claim they prosecuted against the Company, the amount and timing of that payment are currently unresolved and will be determined by the court. The plaintiffs have alleged that they are entitled to approximately $4,000,000 for attorney fees while the Company contends that they should only recover a small fraction of that amount. In addition, the Company is in the process of appealing to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the portions of the Judgment awarding a combined $17,947,000 on the plaintiffs’ tort claims. On September 13, 2012, the Company filed its appellate brief in the Fifth Circuit. On November 15, 2012, FEI, the only appellee, will file its response, and the Company will then file a reply brief, completing the briefing process. It is difficult to determine or even approximate when the Fifth Circuit will rule on the Company’s appeal, but it will likely be several months, if not longer.

Other Litigation Claims. On August 3, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint in Hall Phoenix/Inwood Ltd. and Hall Performance Energy Partners 4, Ltd. v. The Hallwood Group Incorporated, et al. filed in the 298 ^th District of Texas, No. 09-09551. The other defendants included Anthony J. Gumbiner, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Bill Guzzetti, the President of the Company, certain affiliates of Mr. Gumbiner and certain officers of Hallwood Energy. The complaint alleged that the defendants defrauded plaintiffs in connection with plaintiffs acquiring interests in and providing loans to Hallwood Energy and sought unspecified actual and exemplary damages. On September 15, 2010, Ray Balestri, Trustee of the Hallwood Energy I Creditors Trust, intervened in this proceeding and added certain of the Company’s officers, directors, and an employee as defendants. The complaint alleged, among other things, claims against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duties, gross negligence and willful misconduct and sought indeterminable actual and exemplary damages. On November 5, 2010, this case was removed to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Adversary No. 10-03358. As discussed below, in February 2012, this claim was settled.

On July 30, 2010, Hallwood Energy’s trustee filed a complaint captioned Ray Balestri, Trustee of the Hallwood Energy I Creditor’s Trust v. Anthony J. Gumbiner, et al in the Dallas County Court at Law No. 4, No. CC-10-05212D. The other defendants include certain current and former directors, officers and employees of the Company, certain of Hallwood Energy’s former officers and directors, as well as outside legal counsel. The complaint alleged, among other things, claims against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duties, gross negligence and willful misconduct and sought unspecified actual and exemplary damages. This case was removed to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Adversary No. 10-03263. As discussed below, in February 2012, this claim was settled with respect to all parties except outside legal counsel.

Settlement in February 2012 of Litigation Claims other than Adversary Proceeding. Effective February 14, 2012, the Company and certain other parties entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims (the “Settlement Agreement”). The Settlement Agreement settled the claims by HPI, the Trustee of the Hallwood Energy I Creditors’ Trust, and their related parties (the “Plaintiffs”) against the Company and its related parties other than the Adversary Proceeding in which the Bankruptcy Court issued the Proposed Findings.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement included the payment by the Company of $1,800,000, in addition to payments by other defendants and the Company’s insurance carrier for its directors and officers liability insurance policy. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs released the Company, its current and former directors and officers, the former directors and officers of the general partner of Hallwood Energy and various entities related to the foregoing persons from all claims asserted in or related to (i) Hall Phoenix/Inwood Ltd. and Hall Performance Energy Partners 4, Ltd. v. The Hallwood Group Incorporated et al. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Adversary No. 10-03358; (ii) Ray Balestri, Trustee of the Hallwood Energy I Creditor’s Trust v. Anthony J. Gumbiner, et al. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Adversary No. 10-03263; and (iii) another suit in which the Company is not named as a party, and any other claims based on the facts alleged in the foregoing matters or that could have been alleged in the foregoing matters, other than the claims against the Company asserted in the Adversary Proceeding or any claims required to enforce any final judgment entered against the Company in the Adversary Proceeding. Similarly, the defendants released the Plaintiffs from all claims based on the facts alleged in the foregoing matters or that could have been alleged in the foregoing matters, other than any claims or defenses the defendants had in the Adversary Proceeding.

The parties entered into the Settlement Agreement for a number of reasons, including to save time and expense, to ensure available insurance proceeds could be used toward the settlement of the disputed claims rather than the payment of expenses and legal fees, and otherwise to resolve the litigation claims. The defendants continue to believe that the claims asserted against them in the lawsuits had no merit and their agreement to settle and compromise those claims should not be deemed as an admission of any liability, wrongdoing, or fault.

At December 31, 2011, the Company recorded a reserve of $1,800,000 in its statement of operations and balance sheet under Hallwood Energy matters – Litigation Reserve for the full value of the Company’s payments required by the Settlement Agreement. The Company paid the settlement amount of $1,800,000 to the Plaintiffs on February 15, 2012.

Claim Filed by Company with Insurance Carrier for Directors’ and Officers’ Liability Insurance Policy. Prior to entering into the Settlement Agreement, the Company incurred significant legal fees and associated costs in connection with these legal matters. The Company filed claims with the insurance carrier for the directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies maintained by the Company for reimbursement of certain legal fees and costs. The aggregate limit for each policy year under the Company’s policies has been $10,000,000. The insurance carrier took the position that all of the claims asserted in the Hallwood Energy litigation relate to the 2008 – 2009 policy year.

The Company received reimbursement of legal fees and associated costs of approximately $257,000 and $1,373,000 in the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, which were recorded as expense recoveries in administrative and selling expenses. Additionally, the insurance carrier paid legal fees and associated costs on behalf of other defendants in connection with the Hallwood Energy litigation matters other than the Adversary Proceeding. Significant additional costs in excess of insurance reimbursements have been incurred by the Company and on behalf of the other defendants.

In connection with the Settlement Agreement, the insurance carrier agreed to make a payment to the Plaintiffs and received a release and full discharge from any further payments for the Hallwood Energy litigation. Accordingly, the Company did not have insurance coverage available to satisfy the Judgment that was rendered in connection with the Adversary Proceeding. The insurance carrier did not reimburse the Company for the legal fees and costs associated with the Adversary Proceeding.

Environmental Contingencies. A number of jurisdictions in which the Company or its subsidiaries operate have adopted laws and regulations relating to environmental matters. Such laws and regulations may require the Company to secure governmental permits and approvals and undertake measures to comply therewith. Compliance with the requirements imposed may be time-consuming and costly. While environmental considerations, by themselves, have not significantly affected the Company’s or its subsidiaries’ business to date, it is possible that such considerations may have a significant and adverse impact in the future. The Company and its subsidiaries actively monitor their environmental compliance and while certain matters currently exist, management is not aware of any compliance issues which will significantly impact the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company or its subsidiaries.

The Company’s Brookwood subsidiary is subject to a number of environmental laws, regulations, licenses and permits and has ongoing discussions with environmental regulatory authorities, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”), the Rhode Island Department of Health (“RIDOH”), the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (“RIDEM”) and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“CTDEEP”) on a number of matters, including compliance with safe drinking water rules and wastewater discharge and treatment regulations, the control of chemicals used in the companies’ coating operations that are classified as air pollutants, the presence of groundwater and soil contaminants at the companies’ facilities, the removal of underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste management

From time to time Brookwood and its subsidiaries have paid fines or penalties for alleged failure to comply with certain environmental requirements, which did not exceed $100,000 in the aggregate during the three years ended December 31, 2011 and the nine months ended September 30, 2012. In addition, Brookwood and its subsidiaries have entered into various settlements and agreements with the regulatory authorities requiring the companies to perform certain tests, undertake certain studies, and install remedial facilities. Brookwood and its subsidiaries incurred capital expenditures to comply with environmental regulations of approximately $136,000 in the year ended December 31, 2011 and $334,000 during the nine months ended September 30, 2012. In addition, Brookwood and its subsidiaries regularly incur expenses associated with various studies and tests to monitor and maintain compliance with diverse environmental requirements.

Other Contingencies. In May 2009, one of Brookwood’s suppliers advised Brookwood that shipments to Brookwood during the period from September 2008 to April 2009 of a quantity of greige fabric from the supplier incorporated some fiber that was not of domestic origin in some yarn from the vendor. The fabric in question was ordered to fill contracts in support of the United States military, was required to be domestic and is subject to the preference for domestic source required flow down provisions of the Department of Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulations implementing the provisions of 10 USC 2533a. Brookwood’s suppliers had advised that the greige fabric containing the non-compliant yarn was supplied inadvertently to Brookwood in limited quantity. Brookwood determined that this yarn affected two of their greige products. Brookwood advised its affected customers and the United States military of this circumstance. Brookwood resolved the issue with respect to one of the products and received payment at full value in 2009. Additionally, resolution on the second product with one of the procurement entities was achieved and Brookwood received payment at full value of $3,242,000 in October 2010. Resolution with the final procurement entity was reached in the 2011 fourth quarter, and Brookwood received payment at full value of $1,643,000 in January 2012.