Note 9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jul. 01, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 9.  COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

                General Environmental Claims

The Company and certain of its current and former direct and indirect corporate predecessors, subsidiaries and divisions are involved in remedial activities at certain present and former locations and have been identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), state environmental agencies and private parties as potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) at a number of hazardous waste disposal sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“Superfund”) or equivalent state laws and, as such, may be liable for the cost of cleanup and other remedial activities at these sites.  Responsibility for cleanup and other remedial activities at a Superfund site is typically shared among PRPs based on an allocation formula.  Under the federal Superfund statute, parties could be held jointly and severally liable, thus subjecting them to potential individual liability for the entire cost of cleanup at the site.  Based on its estimate of allocation of liability among PRPs, the probability that other PRPs, many of whom are large, solvent, public companies, will fully pay the costs apportioned to them, currently available information concerning the scope of contamination, estimated remediation costs, estimated legal fees and other factors, the Company has recorded and accrued for environmental liabilities in amounts that it deems reasonable and believes that any liability with respect to these matters in excess of the accruals will not be material.  The ultimate costs will depend on a number of factors and the amount currently accrued represents management’s best current estimate on an undiscounted basis of the total costs to be incurred.  The Company expects this amount to be substantially paid over the next five to ten years. 

W.J. Smith Wood Preserving Company (“W.J. Smith”)

The matter with W. J. Smith, a subsidiary of the Company, originated in the 1980s when the United States and the State of Texas, through the Texas Water Commission, initiated environmental enforcement actions against W.J. Smith alleging that certain conditions on the W.J. Smith property (the “Property”) violated environmental laws.  In order to resolve the enforcement actions, W.J. Smith engaged in a series of cleanup activities on the Property and implemented a groundwater monitoring program.

In 1993, the EPA initiated a proceeding under Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) against W.J. Smith and the Company.  The proceeding sought certain actions at the site and at certain off-site areas, as well as development and implementation of additional cleanup activities to mitigate off-site releases.  In December 1995, W.J. Smith, the Company and the EPA agreed to resolve the proceeding through an Administrative Order on Consent under Section 7003 of RCRA.  While the Company has completed the cleanup activities required by the Administrative Order on Consent under Section 7003 of RCRA, the Company still has further post-closure obligations in the areas of groundwater monitoring and ongoing site operations and maintenance costs, as well as potential contractual obligations related to real estate matters.

Since 1990, the Company has spent in excess of $7.0 million undertaking cleanup and compliance activities in connection with this matter.  While ultimate liability with respect to this matter is not easy to determine, the Company has recorded and accrued amounts that it deems reasonable for prospective liabilities with respect to this matter.

                Asbestos Claims 

A.            The Company has been named as a defendant in eleven lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a total of approximately 325 individual plaintiffs.  There are over 100 defendants named in each case.  In all eleven cases, the Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos in the course of their employment at a former U.S. Steel plant in Alabama and, as a result, contracted mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness.  They claim that while in the plant they were exposed to asbestos in products which were manufactured by each defendant.  In nine of the cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death claims.  The Company will vigorously defend the claims against it in these matters.  The liability of the Company cannot be determined at this time.

B.            Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) (“Sterling”) has tendered approximately 2,885 cases pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Kentucky, California, South Carolina, Rhode Island and Canada to the Company for defense and indemnification.  With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company indemnify it for a $200,000 settlement.  Sterling bases its tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993 Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling purchased the LaBour Pump business and other assets from the Company.  Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company in connection with these matters.

The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against Sterling and its subsidiaries.  The Company and its current subsidiaries are not named as defendants.  The plaintiffs in the cases also allege that they were exposed to asbestos and products containing asbestos in the course of their employment.  Each complaint names as defendants many manufacturers of products containing asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs came into contact with a variety of different products in the course of their employment.  Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an inactive subsidiary of the Company, and/or Sterling may have manufactured some of those products.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the one settled by Sterling for $200,000, the Company has taken the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase Agreement.  With respect to the balance of the tendered complaints, the Company has elected not to assume the defense of Sterling in these matters.

C.            LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an inactive subsidiary of the Company, has been named as a defendant in approximately 430 of the New Jersey cases tendered by Sterling.  The Company has elected to defend these cases, the majority of which have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums.  There are approximately 90 cases which remain active as of July 1, 2011.

While the ultimate liability of the Company related to the asbestos matters above cannot be determined at this time, the Company has recorded and accrued amounts that it deems reasonable for prospective liabilities with respect to these matters.

Other Claims

There are a number of product liability and workers’ compensation claims pending against the Company and its subsidiaries.  Many of these claims are proceeding through the litigation process and the final outcome will not be known until a settlement is reached with the claimant or the case is adjudicated.  The Company estimates that it can take up to ten years from the date of the injury to reach a final outcome on certain claims.  With respect to the product liability and workers’ compensation claims, the Company has provided for its share of expected losses beyond the applicable insurance coverage, including those incurred but not reported to the Company or its insurance providers, which are developed using actuarial techniques. Such accruals are developed using currently available claim information, and represent management’s best estimates, including estimated legal fees, on an undiscounted basis.  The ultimate cost of any individual claim can vary based upon, among other factors, the nature of the injury, the duration of the disability period, the length of the claim period, the jurisdiction of the claim and the nature of the final outcome.

Although management believes that the actions specified above in this section individually and in the aggregate are not likely to have outcomes that will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flow, further costs could be significant and will be recorded as a charge to operations when, and if, current information dictates a change in management’s estimates.