13. Contingencies

Asbestos Litigation

Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products that we previously manufactured. We produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics generally had a useful life of three to twelve months.

We were defending 4,443 claims as of October 17, 2012.

The following table sets forth the number of claims filed, the number of claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved, and the aggregate settlement amount during the periods presented:

Year ended December 31,	Opening Number of Claims	Claims Dismissed, Settled, or Resolved	New Claims	Closing Number of Claims	Amounts Paid (thousands) to Settle or Resolve ($)
2005	29,411	6,257	1,297	24,451	504
2006	24,451	6,841	1,806	19,416	3,879
2007	19,416	808	190	18,798	15
2008	18,798	523	110	18,385	52
2009	18,385	9,482	42	8,945	88
2010	8,945	3,963	188	5,170	159
2011	5,170	789	65	4,446	1,111
2012 to date	4,446	73	70	4,443	530

We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims.

Exposure and disease information sufficient meaningfully to estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, and often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims.

While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of October 17, 2012, we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 36,353 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $8,646,000. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The Company has over $125 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that we should be able to access.

Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,873 claims as of October 17, 2012.

The following table sets forth the number of claims filed, the number of claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved, and the aggregate settlement amount during the periods presented:

Year ended December 31,	Opening Number of Claims	Claims Dismissed, Settled, or Resolved	New Claims	Closing Number of Claims	Amounts Paid (thousands) to Settle or Resolve ($)
2005	9,985	642	223	9,566	0
2006	9,566	1,182	730	9,114	0
2007	9,114	462	88	8,740	0
2008	8,740	86	10	8,664	0
2009	8,664	760	3	7,907	0
2010	7,907	47	9	7,869	0
2011	7,869	3	11	7,877	0
2012 to date	7,877	6	2	7,873	0

We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it does not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the claims that have been asserted against it. As of October 17, 2012, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 9,727 claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these proceedings.

For the same reasons set forth above with respect to Albany's claims, as well as the fact that no amounts have been paid to resolve any Brandon claims since 2001, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to these remaining claims.

In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions.

Although we do not believe, based on currently available information and for the reasons stated above, that a meaningful estimate of a range of possible loss can be made with respect to such claims, based on our understanding of the insurance policies available, how settlement amounts have been allocated to various policies, our settlement experience, the absence of any judgments against the Company or Brandon, the ratio of paper mill claims to total claims filed, and the defenses available, we currently do not anticipate any material liability relating to the resolution of the aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing insurance limits. Consequently, we currently do not anticipate, based on currently available information, that the ultimate resolution of the aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company. Although we cannot predict the number and timing of future claims, based on the foregoing factors and the trends in claims against us to date, we do not anticipate that additional claims likely to be filed against us in the future will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We are aware that litigation is inherently uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent primarily on determinations of factual matters to be made by juries.

NAFTA Audits

The Company's affiliate in Mexico was notified in November 2010 that Mexican customs authorities expected to issue demands for duties on certain imports of PMC from the Company and the Company's affiliate in Canada for which the Company has claimed duty-free treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA").

The notices result from a decision by the Mexican Servicio de Administración Tributaria ("SAT") to invalidate NAFTA certificates provided by the Company on products shipped to its Mexican affiliate during the years 2006 through 2008. The Demand Notices arose from an SAT audit during 2010, at the conclusion of which the SAT determined that the Company had failed to provide documentation sufficient to show that the certificates were validly issued, and declared the certificates issued during this period to be invalid. The Company believes that the certificates of origin were valid and properly issued and therefore commenced administrative appeals with SAT disputing its resolutions.

In December 2011, while these appeals were pending, SAT revoked its earlier declarations of invalidation with respect to the certificates of origin at issue in 28 of the 36 open audits, and ordered a further review of such certificates. To date, the Company has been informed by SAT that it has completed its review of 19 of the 28 audits, concluded that the certificates of origin in 19 of those 28 audits were valid, and that the shipments identified in those 19 audits entitled to NAFTA's duty-free treatment. SAT is continuing to review the certificates of origin in the remaining 9 open audits where the original declaration was revoked. SAT is also still considering the Company's appeal with regard to the 8 open audits where the original declaration invalidating the certificates of origin have not yet been revoked.

Based on discussions with SAT, the Company currently expects that it will be given an opportunity to present evidence to SAT officials to establish the origin for NAFTA purposes of all of the shipments covered by the above-described audits still under review, and that it will be able to establish that a very high percentage of the shipments at issue were entitled to NAFTA treatment. For the small percentage of shipments for which the Company may not be able to establish qualification for duty-free treatment under NAFTA, the Company may be required to pay duties and penalties. The Company currently does not expect any such amounts to be material. The Company also does not believe that it faces any material risk of certificates being invalidated with respect to any period other than the 2006 through 2008 audit period. For this reason, the Company does not feel that this matter is likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows.