2.2.0.7 false Legal Proceedings 006120 - Disclosure - Legal Proceedings true false false false 1 USD false false u000 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 u002 Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Notes To Financial Statements [Abstract] 0 lufk_NotesToFinancialStatementsAbstract lufk false na duration No definition available. false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string No definition available. false 3 Legal Proceedings 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 <div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold">12. Legal Proceedings</font></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">On March 7, 1997, a class action complaint was filed against Lufkin Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by an employee and a former employee of the Company who alleged race discrimination in employment. Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998. In April 1999, the District Court issued a decision that certified a class for this case, which included all black employees employed by the Company from March 6, 1994, to the present. The case was administratively closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties unsuccessfully attempted mediation. Trial for this case began in December 2003, and after the close of plaintiff’s evidence, the court adjourned and did not complete the trial until October 2004. Although plaintiff’s class certification encompassed a wide variety of employment practices, plaintiffs presented only disparate impact claims relating to discrimination in initial assignments and promotions at trial.</font></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block"><br /></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">On January 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision finding that the Company discriminated against African-American employees in initial assignments and promotions. The District Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the Company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall, together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%. On August 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the back pay award for the class of affected employees was $3.4 million (including interest to January 1, 2005) and provided a formula for attorney fees that the Company estimates will result in a total not to exceed $2.5 million. In addition to back pay with interest, the District Court (i) enjoined and ordered the Company to cease and desist all racially biased assignment and promotion practices and (ii) ordered the Company to pay court costs and expenses.</font></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block"><br /></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The Company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on September 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 3, 2007, the Company appeared before the appellate court in New Orleans for oral argument in this case. The appellate court subsequently issued a decision on Friday, February 29, 2008 that reversed and vacated the plaintiff’s claim regarding the initial assignment of black employees into the Foundry Division. The court also denied plaintiff’s appeal for class certification of a class disparate treatment claim. Plaintiff’s claim on the issue of the Company’s promotional practices was affirmed but the back pay award was vacated and remanded for recomputation in accordance with the opinion.  The District Court’s injunction was vacated and remanded with instructions to enter appropriate and specific injunctive relief. Finally, the issue of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees was remanded to the District Court for further consideration in accordance with prevailing authority.  </font></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block"><br /></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">On December 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the 5<font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 70%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: text-top">th</font> U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals class action decision and informed the parties that he intended to implement the decision in order to conclude this litigation. At the conclusion of the hearing Judge Clark ordered the parties to submit positions regarding the issues of attorney fees, a damage award and injunctive relief. Subsequently, the Company reviewed the plaintiff’s submissions which described the formula and underlying assumptions that supported their positions on attorney fees and damages. After careful review of the plaintiff’s submission to the court the Company continued to have significant differences regarding legal issues that materially impacted the plaintiff’s requests. As a result of these different results, the court requested further evidence from the parties regarding their positions in order to render a final decision.  The judge reviewed both parties arguments regarding legal fees, and awarded the plaintiffs an interim fee, but at a reduced level from the plaintiffs original request. The Company and the plaintiffs reconciled the majority of the differences and the damage calculations which also lowered the originally requested amounts of the plaintiffs on those matters.  Due to the resolution of certain legal proceedings on damages during first half of 2009 and the District Court awarding the plaintiffs an interim award of attorney fees and cost totaling $5.8 million, the Company recorded an additional provision of $5.0 million in the first half of 2009 above the $6.0 million recorded in fourth quarter of 2008. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court’s interim award of attorney fees with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit subsequently dismissed these appeals on August 28, 2009 on the basis that an appealable final judgment in this case had not been issued.  The court commented that this issue can be reviewed with an appeal of final judgment.</font></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block"><br /></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">On January 15, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas notified the Company that it had entered a final judgment related to the Company’s ongoing class-action lawsuit. The Court ordered the Company to pay the plaintiffs $3.3 million in damages, $2.2 million in pre-judgment interest and 0.41% interest for any post-judgment interest. The Company had previously estimated the total liability for damages and interest to be approximately $5.2 million. The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit a request for legal fees and expenses from January 1, 2009 through the date of the final judgment. On January 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for a supplemental award of $0.7 million for attorney’s fees, costs and expenses incurred between January 1, 2009 and January 15, 2010, as allowed in the final judgment issued by the Court on January 15, 2010, related to the Company’s ongoing class-action lawsuit. The Company recorded provisions for these judgments in 2009.</font></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block"><br /></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">On January 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court’s final judgment. On January 21, 2010, The Company filed a notice of cross-appeal with the same court.  In addition, the Company filed a motion with the District Court to stay the payment of damages referenced in the District Court’s final judgment pending the outcome of the Fifth Circuit’s decision on both parties’ appeals. The District Court granted this motion to stay.</font></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block"><br /></div><div style="TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">There are various other claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business pending against or involving the Company wherein monetary damages are sought.  For certain of these claims, the Company maintains insurance coverage while retaining a portion of the losses that occur through the use of deductibles and retention limits.  Amounts in excess of the self-insured retention levels are fully insured to limits believed appropriate for the Company’s operations.  Self-insurance accruals are based on claims filed and an estimate for claims incurred but not reported.  While the Company does maintain insurance above its self-insured levels, a decline in the financial condition of its insurer, while not currently anticipated, could result in the Company recording additional liabilities.  It is management’s opinion that the Company’s liability under such circumstances or involving any other non-insured claims or legal proceedings would not materially affect its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flow.</font></div> 12. Legal ProceedingsOn March 7, 1997, a class action complaint was filed against Lufkin Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) in the U.S. District false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true