Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is obligated under various operating leases for office and manufacturing space, machinery, and equipment. Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable capital and operating leases (with initial or remaining lease terms in excess of one year) as of December 31:



	Capital		Operating	Total Future Payments
2017	$	1,463	99,091	100,554
2018	1,158		75,238	76,396
2019	869		54,187	55,056
2020	531		36,811	37,342
2021	523		20,535	21,058
Thereafter	3,983		17,612	21,595
Total payments	8,527		303,474	312,001
Less amount representing interest	1,506
Present value of capitalized lease payments	$	7,021

Rental expense under operating leases was $125,103, $116,663 and $120,677 in 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The Company had approximately $941 and $1,381 in standby letters of credit for various insurance contracts and commitments to foreign vendors as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively that expire within two years.

The Company is involved in litigation from time to time in the regular course of its business. Except as noted below and in Note 12-Income Taxes Belgian Tax Matter, 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.

Gadsden, Alabama Litigation

In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden, Alabama (the “Water Board”) filed an individual complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against certain manufacturers, suppliers and users of chemicals containing perfluorinated compounds, including the Company. On October 26, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, alleging diversity of citizenship and fraudulent joinder. The Water Board filed a motion to remand the case back to the state court and the defendants have opposed the Water Board’s motion. The parties await a ruling from the federal court on the motion to remand. The Company has never manufactured perfluorinated compounds, but purchased them for use in the manufacture of its carpets prior to 2007. The Water Board is not alleging that chemical levels in the Company’s wastewater discharge exceeded legal limits. Instead, the Water Board is seeking lost profits based on allegations that its customers decreased water purchases, reimbursement for the cost of a filter and punitive damages.

The Company intends to pursue all available defenses related to this matter. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of this case will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, but there can be no assurances at this stage that the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or cash flows in a given period. Furthermore, the Company cannot predict whether any additional civil or regulatory actions against it may arise from the allegations in this matter.

Polyurethane Foam Litigation

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 was named as a defendant in a number of the individual cases, as well as in two consolidated amended class action complaints on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products and on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers. In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, sought damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Any damages actually awarded at trial would have been subject to being tripled under US antitrust laws.

On March 23 and April 30, 2015, the Company entered into agreements to settle all claims brought by the class of direct and indirect purchasers, and the trial court entered orders granting approval of the settlements on November 19, 2015 and January 27, 2016. Certain individual members of the indirect purchaser class sought to overturn the approval through an appeal to the Sixth Circuit of Appeals. As of June 21, 2016, all of these appeals have been dismissed, provided that one request to reconsider remains pending. The Company has also entered into settlement agreements resolving all of the claims brought on behalf of all of the consolidated individual lawsuits.

In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a Canadian Class action, which alleged similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions. On June 12, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of Canadian plaintiffs.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing but settled to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation.

During the twelve months ended December 31, 2015 the Company recorded a $122,480 charge within selling, general and administrative expenses for the settlement and defense of the antitrust cases. All of the antitrust cases have now been finally settled and with the exception of the single issue pending on appeal in the indirect purchaser class case, all consolidated cases have been dismissed. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of the one remaining issue in the indirect purchaser case will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition.

General

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.

The Company is subject to various federal, state, local and foreign environmental health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing air emissions, wastewater discharges, the use, storage, treatment, recycling and disposal of solid and hazardous materials and finished product, and the cleanup of contamination associated therewith. Because of the nature of the Company’s business, the Company has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs relating to compliance with such laws and regulations. The Company is involved in various proceedings relating to environmental matters and is currently engaged in environmental investigation, remediation and post-closure care programs at certain sites. The Company has provided accruals for such activities that it has determined to be both probable and reasonably estimable. The Company does not expect that the ultimate liability with respect to such activities 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.