Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 16—Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, the Company has been threatened with, or named as a defendant in, various legal or regulatory actions in the ordinary course of business. The Company records a loss contingency liability when a loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Although the potential liability with respect to certain of such legal or regulatory actions cannot be reasonably estimated, none of such matters is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company’s legal costs associated with defending itself are recorded to expense as incurred. In August 2018, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General (the “OIG”), requesting documents pertaining to certain products manufactured by the Company’s Military and Aerospace Group that are purchased or used by the U.S. government. As of the date of this filing, the Company has responded to several production requests from the OIG, with the most recent being completed during the third quarter of 2021. This matter is ongoing and the Company continues to cooperate with the OIG on its requests. The Company is currently unable to estimate the timing or outcome of the matter. From December 2019 through October 2020, the Company was named as one of several defendants in four separate lawsuits filed in the State of Indiana. The lawsuits relate to a manufacturing site in Franklin, Indiana (the “Site”) where the Company has been conducting an environmental clean-up effort under the direction of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”). The Site was shut down in 1983, more than three years before the Company acquired the Site as part of a larger acquisition that led to the establishment of the Company’s business in 1987 (the “Acquisition”). In connection with the Acquisition, the Company agreed, and has continued, to work closely with the EPA regarding the ongoing clean-up effort at the Site, subject to an indemnity from the seller (the “Seller”). In 1989, the Company sold the property where the Site is located. The lawsuits collectively seek, among other things, compensation for personal injuries and for past, present and future medical expenses, compensation for loss of property values near the Site and costs related to medical monitoring for individuals living close to the Site, in each case arising from alleged exposure to hazardous chemicals. The Company denies any wrongdoing and is defending each of the above described lawsuits. All the costs incurred relating to these lawsuits are reimbursed by the Seller based on the Seller’s indemnification obligations entered into in connection with the Acquisition (the “1987 Indemnification Agreement”). In addition, the environmental investigation, remediation and monitoring activities undertaken by the Company relating to the Site are reimbursed under the 1987 Indemnification Agreement. As a result, the Company does not believe that the costs associated with these lawsuits or the resolution of the related environmental matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In March 2021, a non-material customer of the Company filed a formal request for arbitration against the Company relating to a product sold to such customer that the customer alleges did not meet the agreed upon product specification. The customer is pursuing breach of warranty claims against the Company, among other assertions, and is seeking damages relating to its estimated costs of replacing the product. While the customer has claimed damages of approximately €90, the arbitrator will have discretion to determine the actual amount of damages as well as the apportionment of responsibility between the parties. The Company has denied that its product caused the damages, that its product did not meet the agreed upon specifications and that the claimed damages are appropriate, and is vigorously defending itself in the arbitration. Certain operations of the Company are subject to environmental laws and regulations that govern the discharge of pollutants into the air and water, as well as the handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. The Company believes that its operations are currently in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and that the costs of continuing compliance will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

Note 16—Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company has been threatened with, or named as a defendant in, various legal or regulatory actions in the ordinary course of business. The Company records a loss contingency liability when a loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Although the potential liability with respect to certain of such legal or regulatory actions cannot be reasonably estimated, none of such matters is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company’s legal costs associated with defending itself are recorded to expense as incurred.

In August 2018, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General (the “OIG”), requesting documents pertaining to certain products manufactured by the Company’s Military and Aerospace Group that are purchased or used by the U.S. government. As of the date of this filing, the Company has responded to several production requests from the OIG, with the most recent being completed during the third quarter of 2021. This matter is ongoing and the Company continues to cooperate with the OIG on its requests. The Company is currently unable to estimate the timing or outcome of the matter.

From December 2019 through October 2020, the Company was named as one of several defendants in four separate lawsuits filed in the State of Indiana. The lawsuits relate to a manufacturing site in Franklin, Indiana (the “Site”) where the Company has been conducting an environmental clean-up effort under the direction of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”). The Site was shut down in 1983, more than three years before the Company acquired the Site as part of a larger acquisition that led to the establishment of the Company’s business in 1987 (the “Acquisition”). In connection with the Acquisition, the Company agreed, and has continued, to work closely with the EPA regarding the ongoing clean-up effort at the Site, subject to an indemnity from the seller (the “Seller”). In 1989, the Company sold the property where the Site is located. The lawsuits collectively seek, among other things, compensation for personal injuries and for past, present and future medical expenses, compensation for loss of property values near the Site and costs related to medical monitoring for individuals living close to the Site, in each case arising from alleged exposure to hazardous chemicals. The Company denies any wrongdoing and is defending each of the above described lawsuits. All the costs incurred relating to these lawsuits are reimbursed by the Seller based on the Seller’s indemnification obligations entered into in connection with the Acquisition (the “1987 Indemnification Agreement”). In addition, the environmental investigation, remediation and monitoring activities undertaken by the Company relating to the Site are reimbursed under the 1987 Indemnification Agreement. As a result, the Company does not believe that the costs associated with these lawsuits or the resolution of the related environmental matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In March 2021, a non-material customer of the Company filed a formal request for arbitration against the Company relating to a product sold to such customer that the customer alleges did not meet the agreed upon product specification. The customer is pursuing breach of warranty claims against the Company, among other assertions, and is seeking damages relating to its estimated costs of replacing the product. While the customer has claimed damages of approximately €90, the arbitrator will have discretion to determine the actual amount of damages as well as the apportionment of responsibility between the parties. The Company has denied that its product caused the damages, that its product did not meet the agreed upon specifications and that the claimed damages are appropriate, and is vigorously defending itself in the arbitration.

Certain operations of the Company are subject to environmental laws and regulations that govern the discharge of pollutants into the air and water, as well as the handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. The Company believes that its operations are currently in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and that the costs of continuing compliance will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.