COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contingent Liabilities

The Company records an accrual for contingent liabilities when a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. If some amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range, that amount is accrued. When no amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount, the lowest amount in the range is accrued.

Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties

In June 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“U.S. Customs”) sent us a Notice of Action that proposed to classify certain of our imports as subject to anti-dumping duties pursuant to a 2010 anti-dumping duty (“AD”) order on Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) from China. A companion countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on the same product is in effect as well. The Notice of Action covered one entry of certain raw material steel mechanical tubing made in China and imported into the U.S. from Canada by our DynaEnergetics segment during 2015 for use in manufacturing perforating guns.

In July 2015, we sent a response to U.S. Customs outlining the reasons our mechanical tubing imports do not fall within the scope of the AD order on OCTG from China and should not be subject to anti-dumping duties. U.S. Customs proposed to take similar action with respect to other entries of this product and requested an approximately $1,100 cash deposit or bond for AD/CVD.

In August 2015, we posted the bond of approximately $1,100 to U.S. Customs. Subsequently, U.S. Customs declined to conclude on the Company’s assertion that the mechanical tubing the Company has been importing is not within the scope of the AD order on OCTG from China. As a result, on September 25, 2015 the Company filed a request for a scope ruling with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce Department”).

On February 15, 2016, the Company received the Commerce Department’s scope ruling, which determined certain imports, primarily used for gun carrier tubing, are included in the scope of the AD/CVD orders on OCTG from China and thus are subject to AD/CVD. On March 11, 2016, the Company filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) related to the Commerce Department’s scope ruling. On February 7, 2017, the CIT remanded the scope ruling to the Commerce Department to reconsider its determination. The Commerce Department filed its remand determination with the CIT on June 7, 2017 continuing to find that the Company’s imports at issue are within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on OCTG from China. On March 16, 2018, the CIT issued its decision on the appeal and sustained the Commerce Department’s scope ruling. The Company did not appeal this ruling.

On December 27, 2016, we received notice from U.S. Customs that it may pursue penalties against us related to the AD/CVD issue and demanding tender of alleged loss of AD/CVD in an amount of $3,049, which had previously been accrued for in our financial statements. We filed a response to the notice on February 6, 2017. On February 16, 2017, we received notice that U.S. Customs was seeking penalties in the amount of $14,783. U.S. Customs also reasserted its demand for tender of alleged loss of AD/CVD in the amount of $3,049. We tendered $3,049 in AD amounts on March 6, 2017 into a suspense account pending ultimate resolution of the AD/CVD case. We submitted a petition for relief and mitigation of penalties on May 17, 2017.

On March 27, 2018, we received notice from U.S. Customs Headquarters that it intended to move forward with its pursuit of penalties. The Company engaged in discussions with U.S. Customs Headquarters regarding the scope of penalties asserted and the arguments set forth in the Company’s petition for relief and mitigation of penalties. Based on these discussions and the Company’s assessment of the probable ultimate penalty rate, the Company accrued $3,103 in the first quarter of 2018.

On October 11, 2018, we received a decision from U.S. Customs Headquarters in which a mitigated amount of $8,000 in penalties was asserted. The Company expects to tender the amount in the fourth quarter of 2018. In its financial statements for the quarter ended September 30, 2018, the Company accrued an additional $4,897 of penalties. As of September 30, 2018, the total amount accrued related to AD/CVD penalties was $8,000.

During the quarter ended September 30, 2018, the Company paid the remaining accrued AD/CVD and interest of $3,461 to U.S. Customs.

Patent and Trademark Infringement

On July 1, 2016, GEODynamics, Inc., a US-based oil and gas perforating equipment manufacturer based in Fort Worth, Texas (“GEODynamics”) filed a patent infringement action against DynaEnergetics US, Inc. (“DynaEnergetics”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“District Court”) alleging infringement of US Patent No. 8,544,563 (the “563 patent”), based on DynaEnergetics’ US sales of DPEX^® shaped charges. As part of the defense of this action, on September 20, 2016, DynaEnergetics filed an Inter Parties Review (IPR) against the 563 patent at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), requesting invalidation of the 563 patent. On March 17, 2017, DynaEnergetics’ IPR request was instituted by the PTAB, and on March 1, 2018, PTAB issued its decision in favor of DynaEnergetics, invalidating all challenged claims of the 563 patent. In May 2018, GEODynamics filed its notice of appeal with respect to the PTAB decision but withdrew its notice of appeal in September 2018. DynaEnergetics is in the process of filing for dismissal of the District Court case.

On April 28, 2017, GEODynamics filed a patent infringement action against DynaEnergetics in District Court alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,220,394 (the “394 patent”), based on DynaEnergetics’ U.S. sales of its DPEX^® and HaloFrac^® shaped charges. The 394 patent case went to trial in early October 2018, and on October 10, 2018, the jury found in favor of DynaEnergetics on all counts.

On August 21, 2017, GEODynamics filed a patent infringement action against DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG and DynaEnergetics Beteiligungs GmbH, both wholly owned subsidiaries of DMC (collectively, “DynaEnergetics EU”), in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, Germany, alleging infringement of the German part DE 60 2004 033 297 of European patent EP 1 671 013 B1 granted on June 29, 2011, a patent related to the 394 patent (the “EP 013 patent”). This action is based on the manufacturing, sale and marketing of DPEX shaped charges in Germany. DynaEnergetics EU denies validity and infringement of the EP 013 patent and is vigorously defending against this lawsuit. DynaEnergetics EU filed its defense at the Regional Court of Düsseldorf and a nullity action against EP 013 at the German Federal Patent Court on February 14, 2018. A trial in the infringement proceedings is scheduled for March 2019, and a trial in the nullity action is not expected before late 2019.

On September 27, 2017, DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG filed a revocation action in the Patents Court, Shorter Trials Scheme in the UK against GEODynamics, asserting that the EP 013 patent, as maintained in the UK, is invalid. GEODynamics filed its defense and a counterclaim alleging infringement of the EP 013 patent in November 2017 based on sales and marketing of DPEX^® shaped charges in the UK. GEODynamics discontinued its counterclaim for infringement on May 9, 2018 and has been ordered to pay costs related thereto at the close of the proceedings. Trial is currently expected to begin in late October 2018.

We do not believe that the EP 013 patent or infringement claims based on the patent are valid, and we do not believe it is probable that we will incur a material loss on the EP 013 matter. However, if it is determined that the patent is valid and that DynaEnergetics EU has infringed it, it is reasonably possible that our financial statements could be materially affected. We are not able to provide a reasonable estimate of the range of loss, and we have not accrued for any such losses. Such an evaluation includes, among other things, a determination of the total number of infringing products manufactured in Germany, the scope of potential damages and the relevant period for which damages would apply, if any.

Operating Leases

During the third quarter of 2018, we signed a lease for new office space for our corporate headquarters and for NobelClad’s U.S. administrative offices. We expect to move into the new offices during the first quarter of 2019. The annual minimum commitment payments under the office lease for the next five years as of September 30, 2018 are presented below:



	Office Lease Commitments
Year ended December 31 -
2018	$	—
2019	236
2020	286
2021	296
2022	305
Thereafter	2,267

Total minimum payments	$	3,390