Commitments and Contingencies


(a)	Legal Matters

In addition to commitments and obligations in the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to various claims, pending and potential legal actions for damages, investigations relating to governmental laws and regulations and other matters arising out of the normal conduct of its business. The Company assesses contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its consolidated financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the Company's consolidated financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because litigation and legal matters are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable resolutions could occur, assessing litigation and legal matter contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. When evaluating contingencies, the Company may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and/or the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matters. In addition, damage amounts claimed in litigation against the Company may be unsupported, exaggerated or unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of the Company's potential liability. The Company regularly reviews contingencies to determine the adequacy of its accruals and related disclosures. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates. It is possible that cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies. Whether any losses finally determined in any claim, action, investigation or proceeding could reasonably have a material effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including the timing and amount of such losses; the structure and type of any remedies; the monetary significance of any such losses, damages or remedies on the Company's consolidated financial statements; and the unique facts and circumstances of the particular matter that may give rise to additional factors.

Legal and Regulatory Matters

Integral Indemnification Obligation. Integral, which was acquired on July 27, 2011, was previously the subject of a SEC investigation. On July 30, 2009, the SEC and Integral each announced that an administrative settlement had been reached concluding the SEC's investigation. In conjunction with its announcement of the administrative settlement, the SEC disclosed that it was instituting separate civil actions against three former officers of Integral, Steven R. Chamberlain (now deceased), Elaine M. Brown and Gary A. Prince, in a case filed July 30, 2009 captioned United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Steven R. Chamberlain, Elaine M. Brown, and Gary A. Prince, Case No. 09-CV-01423, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The SEC's complaint alleges that from 1999 through August 2006, Chamberlain, Brown and Prince made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material information in various filings with the SEC by failing to disclose the role of Prince, who had been convicted of engaging in securities fraud while at another company, at Integral and his legal background in its filings. The SEC sought permanent injunctions against each defendant, as well as court orders imposing officer and director bars and civil penalties. Integral has indemnification obligations to these individuals, as well as to other former directors and officers of Integral who may incur indemnifiable costs in connection with these actions, pursuant to the terms of separate indemnification agreements entered into with each of them effective as of December 4, 2002. As a result of the acquisition of Integral, the Company has assumed these indemnification obligations. The indemnification agreements provide, subject to certain terms and conditions, that the Company shall indemnify the individual to the fullest extent permissible by Maryland law against judgments, penalties, fines, settlements and reasonable expenses actually incurred in the event that the individual is made a party to a legal proceeding by reason of his or her present or prior service as an officer or employee of Integral, and shall also advance reasonable litigation expenses actually incurred subject to, among other conditions, receipt of a written undertaking to repay any costs or expenses advanced if it shall ultimately be determined that the individual has not met the standard of conduct required for indemnification under Maryland law. Certain costs and expenses were previously covered under Integral's applicable directors and officers liability insurance policy. The policy limits were exhausted in December 2011, and the Company is advancing payment of indemnifiable costs pursuant to the indemnification agreements. On November 26, 2012, the SEC announced that it had finalized a settlement with Elaine M. Brown, resulting in a final judgment that resolved the SEC's matter against Brown. The SEC's case against Gary A. Prince proceeded to a bench trial in December 2012, which trial concluded in January 2013. On May 2, 2013, the court issued a memorandum opinion and entered an order granting judgment in favor of the SEC on one count of its complaint. The court found that in 1997, an accounting bar order had been issued against Mr. Prince because of his conduct at a different company, and that Mr. Prince violated the bar order between 1998 and 2006. The court issued an injunction permanently restraining and enjoining Mr. Prince from violating the accounting bar order. The court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Prince on all other counts of the SEC's complaint. No relief was sought or entered against Integral. The deadline for appeals expired on July 1, 2013. Neither party appealed, so the trial court's judgment is final. This matter is now concluded.

U.S. Government Cost Claims. The Company's contracts with the Department of Defense are subject to audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”). As a result of these audits, from time to time, the Company is advised of claims concerning potential disallowed, overstated or disputed costs. For example, during the course of its current audits, the DCAA is closely examining and questioning certain of its established and disclosed practices that it had previously audited and accepted. In addition, based on a DCAA audit, the U.S. Department of Justice is currently investigating whether one of the Company's subsidiaries violated the federal False Claims Act by overstating its labor and material costs in a contract with the Department of Defense prior to the Company's acquisition of the subsidiary. Under the False Claims Act, the Department of Justice can seek civil penalties plus treble damages. The Company intends to defend itself in these matters and to work to resolve or settle any disputed contract costs. When appropriate, the Company records accruals to reflect its expected exposure to the matters raised by the U.S. Government, and it reviews such accruals on a quarterly basis for sufficiency based on the most recent information available. Based on its assessment, it has accrued an amount in its financial statements for contingent liabilities associated with these matters that it considers to be immaterial to its overall financial position. The matter that is currently being investigated was identified during the acquisition process and was taken into consideration in the purchase price allocation of this subsidiary. Contract disputes with the U.S. Government, however, are inherently unpredictable, and unfavorable resolutions could occur. As a result, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgment about future events. The amount of ultimate loss may exceed the Company's current accruals, and it is possible that its cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies.

Other Litigation Matters. The Company is subject to normal and routine litigation arising from the ordinary course and conduct of business, and, at times, as a result of acquisitions and dispositions. Such disputes include, for example, commercial, employment, intellectual property, environmental and securities matters. The aggregate amounts accrued related to these matters are not material to the total liabilities of the Company. We intend to defend ourselves in any such matters and do not currently believe that the outcome of any such matters will have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.


(b)	Warranty

Certain of the Company’s products, product finishes, and services are covered by a warranty to be free from defects in material and workmanship for periods ranging from one to ten years. Optional extended warranty contracts can also be purchased with the revenue deferred and amortized over the extended warranty period. The Company accrues a warranty liability for estimated costs to provide products, parts or services to repair or replace products in satisfaction of warranty obligations. Warranty revenues related to extended warranty contracts are amortized to income, over the life of the contract, using the straight-line method. Costs under extended warranty contracts are expensed as incurred.

The Company’s estimate of costs to service its warranty obligations is based upon historical experience and expectations of future conditions. To the extent that the Company experiences any changes in warranty claim activity or costs associated with servicing those claims, its warranty liability is adjusted accordingly.

The changes in the Company's aggregate product warranty liabilities, which are included in other current liabilities and other long term-liabilities on the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheets, were as follows (in millions):



	Nine Months Ended
	September 30, 2012			September 29, 2013
Balance at beginning of the period	$	4.6		$	5.2
Costs accrued and revenues deferred	—			0.3
Warranty liabilities assumed from acquisitions	1.2			—
Settlements made (in cash or kind) and revenues recognized	(0.7		)	(0.6		)
Balance at end of period	5.1			4.9
Less: Current portion	(5.1		)	(4.6		)
Non-current accrued product warranty and deferred warranty revenue	$	—		$	0.3