XML 22 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.7.0.1
Legal, Environmental, and Other Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Legal, Environmental, and Other Contingencies  
Legal, Environmental, and Other Contingencies

Note 6.Legal, Environmental, and Other Contingencies

 

The Company is regularly involved in litigation, both as a plaintiff and as a defendant, relating to its business and operations, including environmental, commercial, employment and federal and/or state Equal Employment Opportunity Commission administrative actions. Future expenditures for environmental, employment, intellectual property and other legal matters cannot be determined with any degree of certainty; however, based on the facts presently known, management does not believe that such costs will have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

The Company is currently, and has in the past been, subject to claims involving personal injuries allegedly relating to its products and processes. For example, the Company is presently involved in two actions involving welding rod-related injuries, which were filed in California state court against numerous manufacturers, including the Company, in May 2006 and February 2007, respectively, alleging that the welding-related products of the defendant manufacturers harmed the users of such products through the inhalation of welding fumes containing manganese. The Company (together with a number of other manufacturer defendants) is also involved in one action alleging that asbestos in its facilities harmed the plaintiff. The Company believes that it has defenses to these allegations and that, if the Company were to be found liable, the cases would not have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

 

The Company has received permits from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources to close and provide post closure environmental monitoring and care for certain areas of its Kokomo, Indiana and Mountain Home, North Carolina facilities, respectively. 

 

The Company is required to, among other things, monitor groundwater and to continue post closure maintenance of the former disposal areas at each site. As a result, the Company is aware of elevated levels of certain contaminants in the groundwater, and additional testing and corrective action by the Company could be required.  The Company is unable to estimate the costs of any further corrective action at these sites, if required. Accordingly, the Company cannot assure that the costs of any future corrective action at these, or any other current or former sites, would not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

 

As of September 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017, the Company has accrued $683 for post-closure monitoring and maintenance activities, of which $608 is included in long-term obligations as it is not due within one year.  Accruals for these costs are calculated by estimating the annual cost to monitor and maintain each post-closure site and multiplying that amount by the number of years remaining in the post-closure monitoring.

 

Expected expenditures for post-closure monitoring and maintenance activities (discounted) were as follows at June 30, 2017. 

 

 

 

 

 

2017

$

75

 

2018

 

78

 

2019

 

59

 

2020

 

50

 

2021

 

50

 

2022 and thereafter

 

371

 

 

$

683

 

 

On February 11, 2016, the Company voluntarily reported to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality a leak that it discovered in one of its chemical cleaning operations at its Arcadia, Louisiana facility.  As a result of the discovery, the Company is working with that department to determine the extent of the issue and appropriate remediation.  Currently, the Company is unable to estimate the potential financial impact.

 

The Company expects to amend its Amended and Restated By-Laws effective upon receipt of the affirmative note of a majority of its stockholders at the Company’s 2018 Annual Meeting of stockholders.  The proposed amendment would remove the requirement that stockholders electing to remove a director must show cause in order to do so. This proposed amendment is in response to a recent decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery.