COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is subject to a variety of environmental laws and regulations governing discharges to air and water, the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous or solid waste materials and the remediation of contamination associated with releases of hazardous substances. The Company believes its operations currently comply in all material respects with all of the various environmental laws and regulations applicable to our business; however, there can be no assurance that environmental requirements will not change in the future or that we will not incur significant costs to comply with such requirements.

Under terms of the purchase agreement and related documents for the 1990 acquisition, Ingersoll Rand, the successor-in-interest to American Standard, Inc. (“Ingersoll”), has indemnified the Company for certain items including, among other things, certain environmental claims the Company asserted prior to 2000. If Ingersoll was unable to honor or meet these indemnifications, the Company would be responsible for such items. In the opinion of Management, Ingersoll currently has the ability to meet its indemnification obligations.

Claims have been filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Most of these claims have been made against our wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (“RFPC”), and the vast majority of the claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity, or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. We cannot, however, assure that all of these claims will be fully covered by insurance, or that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable. Our ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be estimated. A limited number of claims are not covered by insurance, nor are they subject to indemnity from non-affiliated parties. Wabtec has incurred defense, administrative and indemnity costs in connection with these actions, but these costs have not been material, and the Company has no information that would suggest these costs would become material in the foreseeable future. Based on the Company’s history in resolving all asbestos claims over the last twenty years, Management believes that the costs of the Company’s asbestos-related cases will not be material to the Company’s overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

On April 21, 2016, Siemens Industry, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Company in federal district court in Delaware alleging that the Company infringed seven patents owned by Siemens related to the Company's Positive Train Control (PTC) technology. On November 2, 2016, Siemens amended its complaint to add six additional patents they also claimed were infringed by the Company's PTC Products or End of Train (EOT) Products (Siemens Patent Case). The Company filed Answers, and asserted counterclaims, in response to Siemens’ complaints. Additionally, after filings by the Company, the US Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trail and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted Inter-Parties Review (IPR) proceedings on eight (8) of the patents asserted by Siemens to contest their validity. Following pre-trial rulings that greatly reduced Siemens’ alleged damages, a jury trial was held in federal district court in Delaware in January 2019 on eight patents, two of which were still subject to an IPR decision on validity from the PTAB. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury awarded Siemens damages of $5.6 million related to PTC patents and $1.1 million related to EOT patents. On August 15, 2019, the Court entered a final judgement in the amount of $14.1 million in favor of Siemens, which included post-discovery damages on all Wabtec PTC and EOT sales through July 2019. Both parties appealed the Final Judgement. On September 27, 2019, the parties entered into a global settlement agreement, settling all on-going litigation between them, as part of the patent litigation including antitrust claims Siemens had made against Wabtec initially.

Xorail, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“Xorail”), has received notices from Denver Transit Constructors (“DTC”) alleging breach of contract related to the operating of constant warning wireless crossings, and late delivery of the Train Management & Dispatch System (“TMDS”) for the Denver Eagle P3 Project, which is owned by the Denver Regional Transit District ("RTD"). No damages have been asserted for the alleged late delivery of the TMDS, and no formal claim has been filed; Xorail has successfully completed a remediation plan concerning the TMDS issues. With regard to the wireless crossing issue, as of September 8, 2017, DTC alleged that total damages were $36.8 million through July 31, 2017 and are continuing to accumulate. The majority of the damages stems from a delay in approval of the wireless crossing system by the Federal Railway Administration ("FRA") and the Public Utility Commission ("PUC"), resulting in the use of flaggers at all of the crossings pending approval of the wireless crossing system and certification of the crossings. DTC has alleged that the delay is due to Xorail's failure to achieve constant warning times for the crossings in accordance with the approval requirements imposed by the FRA and PUC. Xorail has denied DTC's assertions, stating that its system satisfied the

contractual requirements. Xorail has worked with DTC to modify its system and implement the FRA's and PUC's previously undefined approval requirements; the FRA and PUC have both approved modified wireless crossing system, and as of August 2018, DTC completed the process of certifying the crossings and eliminated the use of flaggers. On September 21, 2018, DTC filed a complaint against RTD in Colorado state court for breach of contract related to non-payments and the costs for the flaggers, asserting a change-in-law arising from the FRA/PUC’s new certification requirements; a jury trial is scheduled to begin in May 2020. DTC’s complaint generally supports Xorail’s position and does not name or implicate Xorail; DTC has not updated its notices against Xorail, nor have they filed any formal claim against Xorail.

On April 3, 2018, the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG entered into a consent decree with the United States Department of Justice resolving allegations that the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG had maintained unlawful agreements not to compete for each other’s employees. The allegations also related to Faiveley Transport before it was acquired by the Company in November 2016. No monetary fines or penalties were imposed on the Company. The Company elected to settle this matter with the Department of Justice to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation. Putative class action lawsuits thereafter were filed in several different federal district courts naming the Company and Knorr as defendants in connection with the allegations contained in the consent decree. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages on behalf of employees of the Company (including Faiveley Transport) and Knorr allegedly caused by the defendants’ actions. A federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL) Panel consolidated the cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and on October 12, 2018, a consolidated class action complaint was filed in the Western District of PA with five named plaintiffs. On August 13, 2019, the Company was notified that co-defendant Knorr-Bremse settled with plaintiffs. On January 21, 2020, following Court-sponsored early mediation, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs, agreeing to settle all claims in the case. The parties intend to seek Court approval of the agreed settlement terms and amount.

From time to time the Company is involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of its operations in the ordinary course of business. As of the date hereof, the Company is involved in no litigation that the Company believes will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.