Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies	Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies The Company is subject to various lawsuits, claims and other legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business (including litigation relating to our Legacy Businesses and discontinued operations). All such matters involve uncertainty and accordingly, outcomes that cannot be predicted with assurance. As of June 30, 2017, we are unable to estimate with certainty the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact that we may incur with respect to these matters. It is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, could materially affect our financial condition, results of the operations and cash flows. Intellectual Property Litigation The Company is subject to allegations of patent infringement by our competitors as well as non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) — sometimes referred to as “patent trolls” — who may seek monetary settlements from us, our competitors, suppliers and resellers. The nature of such litigation is complex and unpredictable and, consequently, as of June 30, 2017, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the amount of any monetary liability or financial impact that may be incurred with respect to these matters. It is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters could materially affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. On December 31, 2014, IOENGINE, LLC (“IOENGINE”), an NPE, filed suit in the District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,539,047 by certain products we formerly sold under the IronKey brand. On February 17, 2017, following a trial, the jury returned a verdict against us in the patent infringement case brought by IOENGINE against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The jury awarded the IOENGINE $11.0 million in damages. We strongly disagree with the jury verdict and certain rulings made before trial. We intend to vigorously challenge the verdict and certain of the Court’s pre-trial rulings in post-trial motions, and, if necessary, pursue our rights on appeal. We have conservatively recorded a liability of $11.0 million within “Current liabilities of discontinued operations” on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2017 (the “IOENGINE Reserve”). The existence of the IOENGINE Reserve should not be construed as a belief or expectation on our part that all or any part of the jury verdict or any pre-judgement interest thereon in the IOENGINE matter should or will become due and payable. On May 6, 2016 Nexsan Technologies Incorporated, a subsidiary of NXSN (“NTI”), filed a complaint in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaratory judgment against EMC Corporation (“EMC”). NTI alleges that NTI has a priority of right to use certain of its UNITY trademarks and that NTI’s prosecution of its trademark applications with the respect to, and to use of, such trademarks does not infringe upon EMC’s trademarks. In addition, NTI seeks and injunctive relief to prevent EMC from threatening NTI with legal action related to use of UNITY trademarks, or making any public statements or statements to potential customers calling into question NTI’s right to use UNITY trademarks. EMC has answered and counterclaimed alleging that NTI’s use of the UNITY trademark, infringes EMC’s common law rights in the UNITY and EMC UNITY trademarks. On April 14, 2017, the court in the EMC UNITY matter ruled that NTI has priority over EMC to the UNITY trademark in relation to computer data storage and associated technologies. NTI intends to continue to assert its rights to the UNITY trademark in further proceedings. Trade Payables On January 26, 2016, CMC Magnetic Corp. (“CMC”), a supplier of our Legacy Businesses, filed a suit in the District Court of Ramsey County Minnesota, seeking damages of $6.3 million from the Company and $0.6 million from the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary Imation Latin America Corp. (“ILAC”) for alleged breach of contract. In June 2016, CMC filed a motion seeking to amend its complaint to increase alleged damages to $7.2 million and add additional defendants including the Company’s directors and officers, which the Company has obligations to defend and indemnify. Thereafter, CMC served its amended complaint and the Company and ILAC answered asserting numerous affirmative defenses and counterclaims. On January 3, 2017, CMC filed a second amended complaint in the action pending in the District Court of Ramsey County Minnesota. In addition to alleging that the Company is liable for all open CMC invoices worldwide (which CMC alleges totals approximately $23 million), the second amended complaint asserted fiduciary and related claims against former directors and other defendants, which we have an obligation to defend. Following oral arguments regarding certain motions to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 24, 2017, CMC sought leave of the court to further amend the complaint. A third amended complaint was filed on June 9, 2017, which was later “corrected” by CMC in a subsequent filing on June 15, 2017. The third amended complaint essentially asserts the same claims with clarifications requested by the judge at the March 24, 2017 hearing. On July 10, 2017, we filed an answer to CMC’s third amended complaint and asserted counterclaims. The Company intends to defend its position vigorously and has asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The Company and ILAC deny any liabilities and assert counterclaims for breach of warranty, breach of contract, failure to pay rebates and unjust enrichment. CMC has brought similar claims in Japan and the Netherlands against our subsidiaries; we are also denying liabilities and asserting counterclaims on similar grounds in the Japanese and Dutch actions. Our asserted setoffs and counterclaims in the CMC litigations are for amounts that could constitute a substantial portion of, or exceed, CMC’s claims against us. The Company is currently disputing trade payables with certain vendors (including CMC) associated with our Legacy Businesses on the basis of vendor non-performance. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, based on invoices from these vendors, the Company has recorded, but not made payment, with the respect to $21 million of disputed trade payables, all of which are recorded as “Current liabilities of discontinued operations” on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. To the extent the Company is able to resolve any of these disputes for an amount lower than the corresponding recorded liabilities, the applicable difference would be recognized as a gain within discontinued operations. In connection with disputed trade payables, certain vendors have attached, seized or otherwise effected restrictions on the Company’s access to approximately $9.8 million and $9.4 million of the Company’s cash, all of which is recorded as restricted cash within “Current assets of discontinued operations” on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Employee Matters We received correspondence from former employees of our Legacy Businesses asserting their alleged eligibility to receive severance benefits. Employee restructuring costs are accrued when a probable liability has been determined and the amount of such liability has been reasonably estimated. We did not have any employee restructuring accruals as of June 30, 2017. On March 29, 2017, three former Legacy Business employees filed a lawsuit (the “Severance Action”) in the Minnesota State District Court of Ramsey County asserting state law claims for non-payment of allegedly promised severance benefits. On April 28, 2017, we removed the Severance Action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, based on our position that the Severance Action should properly be litigated in federal court because the alleged severance claims are, in essence, based on alleged rights under the Company’s ERISA severance plan. On May 5, 2017, the Company also moved that the U.S. District Court dismiss the Severance Action based on our position that the plaintiffs’ state law claims are preempted by ERISA and the plaintiffs failed to follow the plan’s appeal procedures as required by ERISA. On July 21, 2017, the U.S. District Court remanded the Severance Action to Minnesota State District Court for further proceedings on the basis that plaintiffs plausibly alleged certain state law claims that may not arise under ERISA. We believe these state law claims are entirely without merit and intend to vigorously defend our position. Copyright Levies In many European Union (EU) member countries, the sale of recordable optical media is subject to a private copyright levy. The levies are intended to compensate copyright holders with “fair compensation” for the harm caused by private copies made by natural persons of protected works under the European Copyright Directive, which became effective in 2002 (the “Directive”). Levies are generally charged directly to the importer of the product upon the sale of the products. Payers of levies remit levy payments to collecting societies which, in turn, are expected to distribute funds to copyright holders. Levy systems of EU member countries must comply with the Directive, but individual member countries are responsible for administering their own systems. Since implementation, the levy systems have been the subject of numerous litigation and law-making activities. On October 21, 2010, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) ruled that fair compensation is an autonomous European law concept that was introduced by the Directive and must be uniformly applied in all EU member states. The CJEU stated that fair compensation must be calculated based on the harm caused to the authors of protected works by private copying. The CJEU ruling made clear that copyright holders are only entitled to fair compensation payments (funded by levy payments made by importers of applicable products, including the Company) when sales of optical media are made to natural persons presumed to be making private copies. Within this disclosure, we use the term “commercial channel sales” when referring to products intended for uses other than private copying and “consumer channel sales” when referring to products intended for uses including private copying. Since the Directive was implemented in 2002, we estimate that we have paid in excess of $100 million in levies to various ongoing collecting societies related to commercial channel sales. Based on the CJEU’s October 2010 ruling and subsequent litigation and law-making activities, we believe that these payments were not consistent with the Directive and should not have been paid to the various collecting societies. Accordingly, subsequent to the October 21, 2010 CJEU ruling, we began withholding levy payments to the various collecting societies and, in 2011, we reversed our existing accruals for unpaid levies related to commercial channel sales. However, we continued to accrue, but not pay, a liability for levies arising from consumer channel sales, in all applicable jurisdictions except Italy and France due to certain court rulings in those jurisdictions. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we had accrued liabilities of $5.3 million and $4.9 million, respectively, associated with levies related to consumer channel sales for which we are withholding payment. These accruals are recorded as “Other current liabilities” on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets (and not within discontinued operations). The Company’s management oversees copyright levy matters and continues to explore options to resolve these matters. Since the October 2010 CJEU ruling, we evaluate quarterly on a country-by-country basis whether (i) levies should be accrued on current period commercial and/or consumer channel sales; and, (ii) whether accrued, but unpaid, copyright levies on prior period consumer channel sales should be reversed. Our evaluation is made on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis and considers ongoing and cumulative developments related to levy litigation and law making activities within each jurisdiction as well as throughout the EU. See following for discussion of reversals of copyright levies in 2013. Italy. In December 2015, we settled our claim for reimbursement of the levies that the Company had paid for sales into its commercial channel with the Italian collecting society, S.I.A.E. The settlement was for $1.0 million and is recorded as a reduction in cost of sales. There are no ongoing levy disputes with respect to Italy. France. We have overpaid levies related to sales into the Company’s commercial channel in an amount of $55.1 million. We adopted a practice of offsetting ongoing levy liability with the French collecting society for GlassBridge’s sales in the consumer channel against the $55.1 million we have overpaid for copyright levies in France (due to us paying levies on commercial channels sales prior to the October 21, 2010 CJEU ruling). During the fourth quarter of 2013, GlassBridge reversed $9.5 million of French copyright levies (existing at the time of a 2013 French court decision) that arose from consumer channel sales that had been accrued but not paid to cost of sales. As of June 30, 2017 the Company had offset approximately $14.4 million. We believe that we have utilized a methodology, and have sufficient documentation and evidence, to fully support our estimates that we have overpaid $55.1 million to the French collection society of levies on commercial channel sales and that we have incurred (but not paid) $14.4 million of levies on consumer channel sales in France. However, such amounts are currently subject to challenge in court and there is no certainty that our estimates would be upheld and supported. In December 2012, GlassBridge filed a complaint against the French collection society, Copie France, for reimbursement of the $55.1 million in commercial channel levies that GlassBridge had paid prior to October 2010. A hearing occurred on December 8, 2015, in the High Court of Justice (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) on GlassBridge Europe’s claim and Copie France’s counterclaim. On April 8, 2016, the Paris District Court rejected all of GlassBridge Europe’s claims finding that the European Union law arguments raised by GlassBridge were inapplicable and relied solely on French law to grant Copie France’s counterclaims. GlassBridge Europe has filed a notice of appeal which suspends enforcement of the ruling. GlassBridge believes Copie France’s counterclaims are without merit and intends to defend its position vigorously. Despite the April 2016 ruling of the Paris District Court, the Company does not believe it to be probable that it will have to make any copyright levy payments in the future to Copie France and, accordingly, has not recorded an accrual for this matter. Canada. The Canadian Private Copying Collective (“CPCC”) is alleging that GlassBridge Enterprises Corp. has not previously reported certain prior sales of Legacy Business products that should have been subject to copyright levies and seeks damages of approximately CAD 1 million and penalties and interest of approximately CAD 5 million. GlassBridge believes CPCC’s claims are without merit and intends to defend its position vigorously. The Company does not believe it to be probable that it will have to make any copyright levy payments in the future to CPCC and, according, has not recorded an accrual for this matter. Other Jurisdictions. During the first quarter of 2015, GlassBridge reversed $2.8 million accrual for German copyright levies on optical products as the result of a favorable German court decision retroactively setting levy rates at a level much lower than the rates sought by the German collecting society. The reversal was recorded as a reduction of cost of sales. At June 30, 2017, the further recovery of some or all of the copyright levies previously paid on commercial sales in EU jurisdictions represents a gain contingency that has not yet met the required criteria for recognition in our financial statements. There is no assurance that we will realize any of this gain contingency. We have an estimated $5.0 million of accrued but unpaid levies associated with consumer sales in EU jurisdictions other than Italy and France that we continue to carry on our books. The Company is subject to several pending or threatened legal actions by the individual European national levy collecting societies in relation to private copyright levies under the Directive. Those actions generally seek payment of the commercial and consumer optical levies withheld by GlassBridge. GlassBridge has corresponding claims in those actions seeking reimbursement of levies improperly collected by those collecting societies. We are subject to threatened actions by certain customers of GlassBridge seeking reimbursement of funds they allege relate to commercial levies that they claim they should not have paid. Although these actions are subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently available to us, management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. We anticipate that additional court decisions may be rendered in 2017 that may directly or indirectly impact our levy exposure in specific European countries which could cause us to review our levy exposure in those countries. Indemnification Obligations In the normal course of business, we periodically enter into agreements that incorporate general indemnification language. Performance under these indemnities would generally be triggered by a breach of terms of the contract or by a supportable third-party claim. There have historically been no material losses related to such indemnifications. As of June 30, 2017 and 2016, estimated liability amounts associated with such indemnifications were not material. Environmental Matters Our Legacy Business operations and indemnification obligations resulting from our spinoff from 3M subject us liabilities arising from a wide range of federal, state and local environmental laws. For example, from time to time we have received correspondence from 3M notifying us that we may have a duty to defend and indemnify 3M with respect to certain environmental claims such as remediation costs. Environmental remediation costs are accrued when a probable liability has been determined and the amount of such liability has been reasonably estimated. These accruals are reviewed periodically as remediation and investigatory activities proceed and are adjusted accordingly. We did not have any environmental accruals as of June 30, 2017. Compliance with environmental regulations has not had a material adverse effect on our financial results. Contingencies On October 14, 2015, the Company acquired 100% of the stock of CDI for a total purchase price of $6.7 million. The purchase price included future contingent consideration totaling up to $5 million (considered to have an estimated fair value of $0.8 million at the time of acquisition). We used the real option valuation technique for calculating the estimated fair value of contingent consideration with a 15% discount rate. The contingent consideration arrangement included the potential for three separate payments of cash and unregistered shares of GlassBridge common stock to the extent that certain defined revenue targets were achieved for the three consecutive six-month periods commencing January 1, 2016. The period of measurement for the third and final payment was January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017, and the revenue target was not met for this or any other period. Accordingly, we have not made any contingent purchase price payments for CDI as of June 30, 2017. The Company reversed the remaining accruals for $0.3 million and the 57,482 shares for issuance. Upon the acquisition of CDI, we integrated CDI with the Nexsan Business, both operationally and with respect to its management team. In addition, the Company contributed all of the issued and outstanding stock of CDI to Nexsan prior to the consummation of the NXSN Transaction which closed on January 23, 2017. See Note 14 - Segment Information for more information.

Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is subject to various lawsuits, claims and other legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business (including litigation relating to our Legacy Businesses and discontinued operations). All such matters involve uncertainty and accordingly, outcomes that cannot be predicted with assurance. As of June 30, 2017, we are unable to estimate with certainty the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact that we may incur with respect to these matters. It is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, could materially affect our financial condition, results of the operations and cash flows.

Intellectual Property Litigation

The Company is subject to allegations of patent infringement by our competitors as well as non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) — sometimes referred to as “patent trolls” — who may seek monetary settlements from us, our competitors, suppliers and resellers. The nature of such litigation is complex and unpredictable and, consequently, as of June 30, 2017, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the amount of any monetary liability or financial impact that may be incurred with respect to these matters. It is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters could materially affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

On December 31, 2014, IOENGINE, LLC (“IOENGINE”), an NPE, filed suit in the District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,539,047 by certain products we formerly sold under the IronKey brand. On February 17, 2017, following a trial, the jury returned a verdict against us in the patent infringement case brought by IOENGINE against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The jury awarded the IOENGINE $11.0 million in damages. We strongly disagree with the jury verdict and certain rulings made before trial. We intend to vigorously challenge the verdict and certain of the Court’s pre-trial rulings in post-trial motions, and, if necessary, pursue our rights on appeal. We have conservatively recorded a liability of $11.0 million within “Current liabilities of discontinued operations” on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2017 (the “IOENGINE Reserve”). The existence of the IOENGINE Reserve should not be construed as a belief or expectation on our part that all or any part of the jury verdict or any pre-judgement interest thereon in the IOENGINE matter should or will become due and payable.

On May 6, 2016 Nexsan Technologies Incorporated, a subsidiary of NXSN (“NTI”), filed a complaint in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaratory judgment against EMC Corporation (“EMC”). NTI alleges that NTI has a priority of right to use certain of its UNITY trademarks and that NTI’s prosecution of its trademark applications with the respect to, and to use of, such trademarks does not infringe upon EMC’s trademarks. In addition, NTI seeks and injunctive relief to prevent EMC from threatening NTI with legal action related to use of UNITY trademarks, or making any public statements or statements to potential customers calling into question NTI’s right to use UNITY trademarks. EMC has answered and counterclaimed alleging that NTI’s use of the UNITY trademark, infringes EMC’s common law rights in the UNITY and EMC UNITY trademarks. On April 14, 2017, the court in the EMC UNITY matter ruled that NTI has priority over EMC to the UNITY trademark in relation to computer data storage and associated technologies. NTI intends to continue to assert its rights to the UNITY trademark in further proceedings.

Trade Payables

On January 26, 2016, CMC Magnetic Corp. (“CMC”), a supplier of our Legacy Businesses, filed a suit in the District Court of Ramsey County Minnesota, seeking damages of $6.3 million from the Company and $0.6 million from the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary Imation Latin America Corp. (“ILAC”) for alleged breach of contract. In June 2016, CMC filed a motion seeking to amend its complaint to increase alleged damages to $7.2 million and add additional defendants including the Company’s directors and officers, which the Company has obligations to defend and indemnify. Thereafter, CMC served its amended complaint and the Company and ILAC answered asserting numerous affirmative defenses and counterclaims. On January 3, 2017, CMC filed a second amended complaint in the action pending in the District Court of Ramsey County Minnesota. In addition to alleging that the Company is liable for all open CMC invoices worldwide (which CMC alleges totals approximately $23 million), the second amended complaint asserted fiduciary and related claims against former directors and other defendants, which we have an obligation to defend. Following oral arguments regarding certain motions to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 24, 2017, CMC sought leave of the court to further amend the complaint. A third amended complaint was filed on June 9, 2017, which was later “corrected” by CMC in a subsequent filing on June 15, 2017. The third amended complaint essentially asserts the same claims with clarifications requested by the judge at the March 24, 2017 hearing. On July 10, 2017, we filed an answer to CMC’s third amended complaint and asserted counterclaims. The Company intends to defend its position vigorously and has asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The Company and ILAC deny any liabilities and assert counterclaims for breach of warranty, breach of contract, failure to pay rebates and unjust enrichment. CMC has brought similar claims in Japan and the Netherlands against our subsidiaries; we are also denying liabilities and asserting counterclaims on similar grounds in the Japanese and Dutch actions. Our asserted setoffs and counterclaims in the CMC litigations are for amounts that could constitute a substantial portion of, or exceed, CMC’s claims against us.

The Company is currently disputing trade payables with certain vendors (including CMC) associated with our Legacy Businesses on the basis of vendor non-performance. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, based on invoices from these vendors, the Company has recorded, but not made payment, with the respect to $21 million of disputed trade payables, all of which are recorded as “Current liabilities of discontinued operations” on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. To the extent the Company is able to resolve any of these disputes for an amount lower than the corresponding recorded liabilities, the applicable difference would be recognized as a gain within discontinued operations. In connection with disputed trade payables, certain vendors have attached, seized or otherwise effected restrictions on the Company’s access to approximately $9.8 million and $9.4 million of the Company’s cash, all of which is recorded as restricted cash within “Current assets of discontinued operations” on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

Employee Matters

We received correspondence from former employees of our Legacy Businesses asserting their alleged eligibility to receive severance benefits. Employee restructuring costs are accrued when a probable liability has been determined and the amount of such liability has been reasonably estimated. We did not have any employee restructuring accruals as of June 30, 2017. On March 29, 2017, three former Legacy Business employees filed a lawsuit (the “Severance Action”) in the Minnesota State District Court of Ramsey County asserting state law claims for non-payment of allegedly promised severance benefits. On April 28, 2017, we removed the Severance Action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, based on our position that the Severance Action should properly be litigated in federal court because the alleged severance claims are, in essence, based on alleged rights under the Company’s ERISA severance plan. On May 5, 2017, the Company also moved that the U.S. District Court dismiss the Severance Action based on our position that the plaintiffs’ state law claims are preempted by ERISA and the plaintiffs failed to follow the plan’s appeal procedures as required by ERISA. On July 21, 2017, the U.S. District Court remanded the Severance Action to Minnesota State District Court for further proceedings on the basis that plaintiffs plausibly alleged certain state law claims that may not arise under ERISA. We believe these state law claims are entirely without merit and intend to vigorously defend our position.

In many European Union (EU) member countries, the sale of recordable optical media is subject to a private copyright levy. The levies are intended to compensate copyright holders with “fair compensation” for the harm caused by private copies made by natural persons of protected works under the European Copyright Directive, which became effective in 2002 (the “Directive”). Levies are generally charged directly to the importer of the product upon the sale of the products. Payers of levies remit levy payments to collecting societies which, in turn, are expected to distribute funds to copyright holders. Levy systems of EU member countries must comply with the Directive, but individual member countries are responsible for administering their own systems. Since implementation, the levy systems have been the subject of numerous litigation and law-making activities. On October 21, 2010, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) ruled that fair compensation is an autonomous European law concept that was introduced by the Directive and must be uniformly applied in all EU member states. The CJEU stated that fair compensation must be calculated based on the harm caused to the authors of protected works by private copying. The CJEU ruling made clear that copyright holders are only entitled to fair compensation payments (funded by levy payments made by importers of applicable products, including the Company) when sales of optical media are made to natural persons presumed to be making private copies. Within this disclosure, we use the term “commercial channel sales” when referring to products intended for uses other than private copying and “consumer channel sales” when referring to products intended for uses including private copying.

Since the Directive was implemented in 2002, we estimate that we have paid in excess of $100 million in levies to various ongoing collecting societies related to commercial channel sales. Based on the CJEU’s October 2010 ruling and subsequent litigation and law-making activities, we believe that these payments were not consistent with the Directive and should not have been paid to the various collecting societies. Accordingly, subsequent to the October 21, 2010 CJEU ruling, we began withholding levy payments to the various collecting societies and, in 2011, we reversed our existing accruals for unpaid levies related to commercial channel sales. However, we continued to accrue, but not pay, a liability for levies arising from consumer channel sales, in all applicable jurisdictions except Italy and France due to certain court rulings in those jurisdictions. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we had accrued liabilities of $5.3 million and $4.9 million, respectively, associated with levies related to consumer channel sales for which we are withholding payment. These accruals are recorded as “Other current liabilities” on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets (and not within discontinued operations). The Company’s management oversees copyright levy matters and continues to explore options to resolve these matters.

Since the October 2010 CJEU ruling, we evaluate quarterly on a country-by-country basis whether (i) levies should be accrued on current period commercial and/or consumer channel sales; and, (ii) whether accrued, but unpaid, copyright levies on prior period consumer channel sales should be reversed. Our evaluation is made on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis and considers ongoing and cumulative developments related to levy litigation and law making activities within each jurisdiction as well as throughout the EU. See following for discussion of reversals of copyright levies in 2013.

Italy. In December 2015, we settled our claim for reimbursement of the levies that the Company had paid for sales into its commercial channel with the Italian collecting society, S.I.A.E. The settlement was for $1.0 million and is recorded as a reduction in cost of sales. There are no ongoing levy disputes with respect to Italy.

France. We have overpaid levies related to sales into the Company’s commercial channel in an amount of $55.1 million. We adopted a practice of offsetting ongoing levy liability with the French collecting society for GlassBridge’s sales in the consumer channel against the $55.1 million we have overpaid for copyright levies in France (due to us paying levies on commercial channels sales prior to the October 21, 2010 CJEU ruling). During the fourth quarter of 2013, GlassBridge reversed $9.5 million of French copyright levies (existing at the time of a 2013 French court decision) that arose from consumer channel sales that had been accrued but not paid to cost of sales. As of June 30, 2017 the Company had offset approximately $14.4 million.

We believe that we have utilized a methodology, and have sufficient documentation and evidence, to fully support our estimates that we have overpaid $55.1 million to the French collection society of levies on commercial channel sales and that we have incurred (but not paid) $14.4 million of levies on consumer channel sales in France. However, such amounts are currently subject to challenge in court and there is no certainty that our estimates would be upheld and supported. In December 2012, GlassBridge filed a complaint against the French collection society, Copie France, for reimbursement of the $55.1 million in commercial channel levies that GlassBridge had paid prior to October 2010. A hearing occurred on December 8, 2015, in the High Court of Justice (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) on GlassBridge Europe’s claim and Copie France’s counterclaim. On April 8, 2016, the Paris District Court rejected all of GlassBridge Europe’s claims finding that the European Union law arguments raised by GlassBridge were inapplicable and relied solely on French law to grant Copie France’s counterclaims. GlassBridge Europe has filed a notice of appeal which suspends enforcement of the ruling. GlassBridge believes Copie France’s counterclaims are without merit and intends to defend its position vigorously. Despite the April 2016 ruling of the Paris District Court, the Company does not believe it to be probable that it will have to make any copyright levy payments in the future to Copie France and, accordingly, has not recorded an accrual for this matter.

Canada. The Canadian Private Copying Collective (“CPCC”) is alleging that GlassBridge Enterprises Corp. has not previously reported certain prior sales of Legacy Business products that should have been subject to copyright levies and seeks damages of approximately CAD 1 million and penalties and interest of approximately CAD 5 million. GlassBridge believes CPCC’s claims are without merit and intends to defend its position vigorously. The Company does not believe it to be probable that it will have to make any copyright levy payments in the future to CPCC and, according, has not recorded an accrual for this matter.

Other Jurisdictions. During the first quarter of 2015, GlassBridge reversed $2.8 million accrual for German copyright levies on optical products as the result of a favorable German court decision retroactively setting levy rates at a level much lower than the rates sought by the German collecting society. The reversal was recorded as a reduction of cost of sales. At June 30, 2017, the further recovery of some or all of the copyright levies previously paid on commercial sales in EU jurisdictions represents a gain contingency that has not yet met the required criteria for recognition in our financial statements. There is no assurance that we will realize any of this gain contingency. We have an estimated $5.0 million of accrued but unpaid levies associated with consumer sales in EU jurisdictions other than Italy and France that we continue to carry on our books.

The Company is subject to several pending or threatened legal actions by the individual European national levy collecting societies in relation to private copyright levies under the Directive. Those actions generally seek payment of the commercial and consumer optical levies withheld by GlassBridge. GlassBridge has corresponding claims in those actions seeking reimbursement of levies improperly collected by those collecting societies. We are subject to threatened actions by certain customers of GlassBridge seeking reimbursement of funds they allege relate to commercial levies that they claim they should not have paid. Although these actions are subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently available to us, management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. We anticipate that additional court decisions may be rendered in 2017 that may directly or indirectly impact our levy exposure in specific European countries which could cause us to review our levy exposure in those countries.

Indemnification Obligations

In the normal course of business, we periodically enter into agreements that incorporate general indemnification language. Performance under these indemnities would generally be triggered by a breach of terms of the contract or by a supportable third-party claim. There have historically been no material losses related to such indemnifications. As of June 30, 2017 and 2016, estimated liability amounts associated with such indemnifications were not material.

Environmental Matters

Our Legacy Business operations and indemnification obligations resulting from our spinoff from 3M subject us liabilities arising from a wide range of federal, state and local environmental laws. For example, from time to time we have received correspondence from 3M notifying us that we may have a duty to defend and indemnify 3M with respect to certain environmental claims such as remediation costs. Environmental remediation costs are accrued when a probable liability has been determined and the amount of such liability has been reasonably estimated. These accruals are reviewed periodically as remediation and investigatory activities proceed and are adjusted accordingly. We did not have any environmental accruals as of June 30, 2017. Compliance with environmental regulations has not had a material adverse effect on our financial results.

Contingencies

On October 14, 2015, the Company acquired 100% of the stock of CDI for a total purchase price of $6.7 million. The purchase price included future contingent consideration totaling up to $5 million (considered to have an estimated fair value of $0.8 million at the time of acquisition). We used the real option valuation technique for calculating the estimated fair value of contingent consideration with a 15% discount rate. The contingent consideration arrangement included the potential for three separate payments of cash and unregistered shares of GlassBridge common stock to the extent that certain defined revenue targets were achieved for the three consecutive six-month periods commencing January 1, 2016. The period of measurement for the third and final payment was January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017, and the revenue target was not met for this or any other period. Accordingly, we have not made any contingent purchase price payments for CDI as of June 30, 2017. The Company reversed the remaining accruals for $0.3 million and the 57,482 shares for issuance. Upon the acquisition of CDI, we integrated CDI with the Nexsan Business, both operationally and with respect to its management team. In addition, the Company contributed all of the issued and outstanding stock of CDI to Nexsan prior to the consummation of the NXSN Transaction which closed on January 23, 2017. See Note 14 - Segment Information for more information.