Commitments and contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 04, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Commitments and contingencies The Company is involved in litigation from time to time in the regular course of its business. Except as noted below, there are no material legal proceedings pending or known by the Company to be contemplated to which the Company is a party or to which any of its property is subject. Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the Company’s carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of individual cases (the first filed on August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class action complaints the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products, and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers. All pending cases in which the Company has been named as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196. In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. The direct purchaser class claimed damages from all of the defendants named in the lawsuit of up to approximately $867,400. Any damages actually awarded at trial are subject to being tripled under US antitrust laws. The amount of damages in the remaining cases varies or has not yet been specified by the plaintiffs. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs and injunctive relief against future violations. In April 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action claims brought by the direct purchasers, and in May 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the claims brought by the indirect purchasers. On July 19, 2011, the Court denied all defendants’ motions to dismiss. On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the direct and indirect purchaser classes. The Company sought permission to appeal the certification order on April 24, 2014, and the petition was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on September 29, 2014. The Company appealed the Sixth Circuit's order to the United States Supreme Court, which entered an order declining the review on March 2, 2015. Fact discovery in almost all cases is now complete and, in August 2014, the Company and other defendants filed motions for summary judgment against the direct purchaser class. In February 2015, the Court denied all summary judgment motions. On April 23, 2015, the Court consolidated nine lawsuits involving non-class claims filed against the Company by direct purchasers of polyurethane foam. These consolidated cases have been scheduled for trial to begin August 18, 2015. The Company has agreements in principle to settle two of these cases and is preparing to file motions for summary judgment with respect to the remaining seven cases. On March 23, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of direct purchasers, and on April 30, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of indirect purchasers. Both settlement agreements are subject to court approval, which the Company expects to receive. The Company continues to deny all allegations of wrongdoing but is settling to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. The Company remains a defendant in a number of cases involving other purchasers of polyurethane foam products not sold by the Company. The amount of the damages in the remaining cases varies or has not yet been specified by the plaintiffs. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs and injunctive relief against future violations. In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions and seek unspecified damages and punitive damages. The Company denies all of the allegations in these actions and will vigorously defend itself. The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the Canadian actions, but the settlement has not yet been finalized. During the three months ended April 4, 2015 the Company has recorded a $125,000 charge within selling, general and administrative expenses for the settlement and defense of the U.S. cases. The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of all of these cases have been made. These cases are subject to significant contingencies and uncertainties, and the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, in excess of amounts accrued. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of the remaining cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, but the resolution of such cases could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or liquidity in a given quarter or year. In January 2012, the Company received a €23,789 assessment from the Belgian tax authority related to its year ended December 31, 2008, asserting that the Company had understated its Belgian taxable income for that year. The Company filed a formal protest in the first quarter of 2012 refuting the Belgian tax authority's position. The Belgian tax authority set aside the assessment in the third quarter of 2012 and refunded all related deposits, including interest income of €1,583 earned on such deposits. However, on October 23, 2012, the Belgian tax authority notified the Company of its intent to increase the Company's taxable income for the year ended December 31, 2008 under a revised theory. However on December 28, 2012, the Belgian tax authority issued assessments for the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009, in the amounts of €46,135 and €35,567, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed a formal protest during the first quarter of 2013 relating to the new assessments. In September 2013, the Belgian tax authority denied the Company's protests, and the Company has brought these two years before the Court of First Instance in Bruges. In December 2013, the Belgian tax authority issued additional assessments related to the years ended December 31, 2006, 2007, and 2010, in the amounts of €38,817, €39,635, and €43,117, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed formal protests during the first quarter of 2014, refuting the Belgian tax authority's position for each of the years assessed. In the quarter ended June 28, 2014, the Company received a formal assessment for the year ended December 31, 2008, totaling €30,131, against which the Company also submitted its formal protest. All 4 additional years were brought before the Court of First Appeal in November 2014. In January of 2015, the Company met with the Court of First Appeal in Bruges and agreed with the Belgium tax authorities to consolidate and argue the issues regarding the years 2005 and 2009, and apply the ruling to all of the open years (to the extent there are no additional facts/procedural arguments in the other years). The Company continues to disagree with the views of the Belgian tax authority on this matter and will persist in its vigorous defense. Although there can be no assurances, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, liquidity or cash flows in a given quarter or year. The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made for probable losses that are reasonably estimable. These contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and we are unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, in excess of amounts accrued. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or liquidity in a given quarter or year.

Commitments and contingencies

The Company is involved in litigation from time to time in the regular course of its business. Except as noted below, there are no material legal proceedings pending or known by the Company to be contemplated to which the Company is a party or to which any of its property is subject.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the Company’s carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of individual cases (the first filed on August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class action complaints the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products, and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers. All pending cases in which the Company has been named as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. The direct purchaser class claimed damages from all of the defendants named in the lawsuit of up to approximately $867,400. Any damages actually awarded at trial are subject to being tripled under US antitrust laws. The amount of damages in the remaining cases varies or has not yet been specified by the plaintiffs. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs and injunctive relief against future violations.

In April 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action claims brought by the direct purchasers, and in May 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the claims brought by the indirect purchasers. On July 19, 2011, the Court denied all defendants’ motions to dismiss. On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the direct and indirect purchaser classes. The Company sought permission to appeal the certification order on April 24, 2014, and the petition was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit on September 29, 2014. The Company appealed the Sixth Circuit's order to the United States Supreme Court, which entered an order declining the review on March 2, 2015. Fact discovery in almost all cases is now complete and, in August 2014, the Company and other defendants filed motions for summary judgment against the direct purchaser class. In February 2015, the Court denied all summary judgment motions.

On April 23, 2015, the Court consolidated nine lawsuits involving non-class claims filed against the Company by direct purchasers of polyurethane foam. These consolidated cases have been scheduled for trial to begin August 18, 2015. The Company has agreements in principle to settle two of these cases and is preparing to file motions for summary judgment with respect to the remaining seven cases.

On March 23, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of direct purchasers, and on April 30, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of indirect purchasers. Both settlement agreements are subject to court approval, which the Company expects to receive. The Company continues to deny all allegations of wrongdoing but is settling to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. The Company remains a defendant in a number of cases involving other purchasers of polyurethane foam products not sold by the Company. The amount of the damages in the remaining cases varies or has not yet been specified by the plaintiffs. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs and injunctive relief against future violations.

In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions and seek unspecified damages and punitive damages. The Company denies all of the allegations in these actions and will vigorously defend itself. The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the Canadian actions, but the settlement has not yet been finalized.

During the three months ended April 4, 2015 the Company has recorded a $125,000 charge within selling, general and administrative expenses for the settlement and defense of the U.S. cases. The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of all of these cases have been made. These cases are subject to significant contingencies and uncertainties, and the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, in excess of amounts accrued. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of the remaining cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, but the resolution of such cases could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or liquidity in a given quarter or year.

In January 2012, the Company received a €23,789 assessment from the Belgian tax authority related to its year ended December 31, 2008, asserting that the Company had understated its Belgian taxable income for that year. The Company filed a formal protest in the first quarter of 2012 refuting the Belgian tax authority's position. The Belgian tax authority set aside the assessment in the third quarter of 2012 and refunded all related deposits, including interest income of €1,583 earned on such deposits. However, on October 23, 2012, the Belgian tax authority notified the Company of its intent to increase the Company's taxable income for the year ended December 31, 2008 under a revised theory.

However on December 28, 2012, the Belgian tax authority issued assessments for the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009, in the amounts of €46,135 and €35,567, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed a formal protest during the first quarter of 2013 relating to the new assessments. In September 2013, the Belgian tax authority denied the Company's protests, and the Company has brought these two years before the Court of First Instance in Bruges.

In December 2013, the Belgian tax authority issued additional assessments related to the years ended December 31, 2006, 2007, and 2010, in the amounts of €38,817, €39,635, and €43,117, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed formal protests during the first quarter of 2014, refuting the Belgian tax authority's position for each of the years assessed. In the quarter ended June 28, 2014, the Company received a formal assessment for the year ended December 31, 2008, totaling €30,131, against which the Company also submitted its formal protest. All 4 additional years were brought before the Court of First Appeal in November 2014.

In January of 2015, the Company met with the Court of First Appeal in Bruges and agreed with the Belgium tax authorities to consolidate and argue the issues regarding the years 2005 and 2009, and apply the ruling to all of the open years (to the extent there are no additional facts/procedural arguments in the other years).

The Company continues to disagree with the views of the Belgian tax authority on this matter and will persist in its vigorous defense. Although there can be no assurances, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, liquidity or cash flows in a given quarter or year.

The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made for probable losses that are reasonably estimable. These contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and we are unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, in excess of amounts accrued. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or liquidity in a given quarter or year.