Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contract Termination Costs

In anticipation of relocating its corporate headquarters, the Company entered into a lease agreement in 2005. The Company reconsidered and decided not to move its headquarters. The lease, which extends through June 30, 2019, obligates the Company to lease 55,047 square feet. The Company has executed subleases for the entire 55,047 square feet it currently leases. The terms of the existing subleases expire in years 2013 to 2019. The Company estimates that the present value of the estimated future sublease rental receipts, net of transaction costs, will be less than the Company’s remaining minimum lease payment obligations under its lease for the office space and has recorded a liability for the expected shortfall.

To estimate future sublease receipts for the periods beyond the term of the existing subleases, the Company has assumed that the existing subleases will be renewed or new subleases will be executed at rates consistent with rental rates in the current subleases. However, management cannot be certain that the timing of future subleases or the rental rates contained in future subleases will not differ from current estimates. Factors such as the availability of commercial office space, poor economic conditions and subtenant preferences will influence the terms achieved in future subleases. The inability to sublet the office space in the future or unfavorable changes to key management assumptions used in the estimate of the future sublease receipts may result in material charges to selling, general and administrative expenses in future periods.

As of March 31, 2013, the minimum payments remaining under the Company’s lease relating to its reconsidered corporate relocation over the years ending December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 are $1.3 million, $1.7 million, $1.7 million, $1.8 million and $1.8 million, respectively, and $2.7 million thereafter. The minimum receipts remaining under the Company’s existing subleases over the years ending December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 are $1.1 million, $1.5 million, $0.6 million, $0.6 million and $0.6 million, respectively, and $0.9 million thereafter.

The following table provides information about the Company’s liability related to the lease (in thousands):

	2013			2012
Balance as of January 1	$	1,103		$	452
Net rental receipts (payments)		(110	)		(8	)
Accretion of discount		21			9
Increase in net estimated contract termination costs		—			—
Balance as of March 31	$	1,014		$	453

Product Warranty

The Company warrants that its products will be free from material defects in workmanship and materials. This warranty generally extends for a period of 25 years for residential use and 10 years for commercial use. (With respect to TrexTrim™ and Trex Reveal™ Railing, the warranty period is 25 years for both residential and commercial use.) With respect to the Company’s Transcend^®, Enhance ^® and Universal Fascia product, the Company further warrants that the product will not fade in color more than a certain amount and will be resistant to permanent staining from food substances or mold (provided the stain is cleaned within seven days of appearance). This warranty extends for a period of 25 years for residential use and 10 years for commercial use. If there is a breach of such warranties, the Company has an obligation either to replace the defective product or refund the purchase price.

The Company continues to receive and settle claims related to material produced at its Nevada facility prior to 2007 that exhibits surface flaking and maintains a warranty reserve to provide for the settlement of these claims. Projecting future surface flaking settlement costs requires management to estimate the number of claims to be received, the number of claims that will ultimately result in payment and the average cost to settle each claim, all of which are subject to variables that are difficult to predict.

The average cost per claim may vary due to a number of factors, including the average size of affected decks, the type of replacement material used, changes in the cost of production and the method of claim settlement. Although the cost per claim varies over time, it is less volatile and more predictable than the number of claims to be received, which is inherently uncertain. The Company is not aware of any analogous industry data that might be referenced in predicting future claims to be received. The Company evaluates its historical surface flaking claims activity in developing its estimate of future claims.

The Company’s analysis is based on currently known facts and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events such as new claims to be received each year and the average cost of resolving each claim could cause the actual warranty liabilities to be higher or lower than those projected which could materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flow. The Company estimates that the number of claims received will continue to decline over time. If the level of claims does not diminish consistent with the Company’s expectations, it could result in additional increases to the warranty reserve and reduced earnings in future periods. The Company estimates that a 10% change in the expected number of remaining claims or the expected cost to settle claims may result in approximately a $2.7 million change in the warranty reserve.

The following is a reconciliation of the Company’s warranty reserve (in thousands):

	2013			2012
Beginning balance, January 1	$	28,987		$	16,345
Provision for estimated warranties		—			403
Settlements made during the period		(1,681	)		(1,823	)
Ending balance, March 31	$	27,306		$	14,925

Legal Matters

As reported in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, on January 19, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz County, by the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and certain other law firms (the “Lieff Cabraser Group”) on behalf of Eric Ross and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly situated plaintiffs. These plaintiffs generally allege certain defects in the Company’s products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products. On February 13, 2009, the Company removed this case to the United States District Court, Northern District of California. On January 21, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington by the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (the “Hagens Berman Firm”) on behalf of Mark Okano and similarly situated plaintiffs, generally alleging certain product defects in the Company’s products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products. This case was transferred by the Washington Court to the California Court as a related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group’s case.

On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group involving surface flaking of the Company’s product, and on March 15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement. On April 14, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed a notice to appeal the District Court’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 9, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm dismissed their appeal, effectively making the settlement final.

On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company’s products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth. The Hagens Berman firm has alleged similar claims in its original complaint. In its Final Order approving the surface flaking settlement, the District Court consolidated these pending actions relating to the mold claims, and appointed the Hagens Berman Firm as lead counsel in this case. On December 3, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed an amended consolidated complaint relating to the mold growth claims (now on behalf of Dean Mahan and other named plaintiffs).

On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, by the lead law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP (“Cohen & Malad”) on behalf of Richard Levin and similarly situated plaintiffs, and on June 13, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against the Company in the Marion Circuit/Superior Court of Indiana by Cohen & Malad on behalf of Ellen Kopetsky and similarly situated plaintiffs. On June 28, 2011, the Company removed the Kopetsky case to the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana. On August 11, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against the Company in the 50 ^th Circuit Court for the County of Chippewa, Michigan on behalf of Joel and Lori Peffers and similarly situated plaintiffs. On August 26, 2011, the Company removed the Peffers case to the United States District Court, Western District of Michigan. On April 4, 2012, a purported class action was commenced against the Company in Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County on behalf of Caryn Borger, M.D. and similarly situated plaintiffs. On May 1, 2012, the Company removed the Borger case to the United States District Court, District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs in these purported class actions generally allege certain defects in the Company’s products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.

The Company believes that the claims discussed above relating to mold growth are without merit and denies all liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged. However, the Company is aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation. As of March 31, 2013, the Company has accrued a $1.7 million liability related to these claims. It is reasonably possible that the Company may incur costs in excess of the recorded amounts; however, the Company expects that the total net cost to resolve the lawsuit will not exceed $10 million.

The Company has other lawsuits, as well as other claims, pending against it which are ordinary routine litigation and claims incidental to the business. Management has evaluated the merits of these other lawsuits and claims, and believes that their ultimate resolution will not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or competitive position.