XML 21 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Litigation And Related Matters	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Litigation And Related Matters [Abstract]
Litigation And Related Matters	NOTE 19. LITIGATION AND RELATED MATTERS ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Environmental Expenditures Our manufacturing and research facilities are affected by various federal, state and local requirements relating to the discharge of materials and the protection of the environment. We make expenditures necessary for compliance with applicable environmental requirements at each of our operating facilities. These regulatory requirements continually change, therefore we cannot predict with certainty future expenditures associated with compliance with environmental requirements. Environmental Remediation Summary We are actively involved in proceedings under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), and similar state "Superfund" laws at several off-site locations. We have also been investigating and/or remediating environmental contamination allegedly resulting from past industrial activity at several current or former plant sites. In a few cases, we are one of several potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") which have potential liability for the required investigation and remediation of each site. In those cases, we have agreed to jointly fund that required investigation and remediation, while preserving our defenses to the liability. We may also have rights of contribution or reimbursement from other parties or coverage under applicable insurance policies. Estimates of our future environmental liability at the Superfund sites and current or former plant sites are based on evaluations of currently available facts regarding each individual site. We consider factors such as our activities associated with the site, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations and prior company experience in remediating contaminated sites. Although current law imposes joint and several liability on all parties at Superfund sites, our contribution to the remediation of these sites is expected to be limited by the number of other companies potentially liable for site remediation. As a result, our estimated liability reflects only our expected share. In determining the probability of contribution, we consider the solvency of other parties, whether liability is being disputed, the terms of any existing agreements and experience with similar matters, and the effect of our Chapter 11 reorganization upon the validity of the claim. Specific Events In August 2010, we entered into a Consent Order with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ("ODEQ"), along with Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. ("Kaiser"), and Owens Corning Sales LLC ("OC"), with respect to our St. Helens, Oregon ceilings facility, which was previously owned by Kaiser and then OC. The Consent Order, which replaces a previous order of the ODEQ requiring us to investigate and remediate hazardous substances present at the facility, requires that we and Kaiser complete a remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS") on the portion of the site owned by us. The Consent Order further requires us, Kaiser and OC to conduct an RI/FS in the adjacent Scappoose Bay. Our current estimate of our future liability at the site relates to the investigation work required by the Consent Order and to the currently projected cost of possible remedies for certain portions of the property owned by us. However, the RI/FS for the portion of the property owned by us is not yet complete. It is probable that additional corrective action for the portion of the property owned by us will be required. Such corrective action could result in additional costs greater than currently estimated and, consequently, those costs may be material. At this time, we are unable to estimate with reasonable certainty the total costs that we may ultimately incur with respect to the Scappoose Bay, although such amounts may be material. Costs and responsibilities for the RI/FS for certain portions of the St. Helens property owned by us continue to be shared with Kaiser pursuant to an agreement between Kaiser and us. Limited contributions are also being made by ODEQ pursuant to its settlement with OC for OC's liabilities for the property. Contemporaneously with the execution of the Consent Order, we, Kaiser and OC also entered into a cost allocation agreement for the investigation and possible remediation of the Scappoose Bay. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has listed two landfills located on a portion of our ceilings facility in Macon, Georgia, along with the former Macon Naval Ordnance Plant landfill adjacent to our property, and portions of Rocky Creek (collectively the "Macon Site") as a Superfund site on the National Priorities List due to the presence of contaminants, most notably PCBs. In September 2010 we entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for a Removal Action with the EPA to investigate PCB contamination in one of the landfills on our property that is a portion of the Superfund Site. Our current estimate of our future liability includes costs for investigative work that we agreed to perform under the EPA order. Additionally, we will ultimately incur expenses for closure or some form of remedial action with respect to the landfill. While those amounts are not estimable at this time, they may be material. Additionally, it is probable that we will incur field investigation, engineering and oversight costs associated with an RI/FS with respect to the remainder of the Superfund site, including Rocky Creek. We, along with other parties, may also ultimately incur costs in remedying contamination discovered during the RI/FS. At this time, we are not able to estimate with reasonable certainty the amounts we may ultimately incur with respect to those activities, although such amounts may be material. Summary of Financial Position Liabilities of $7.8 million and $8.3 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, were recorded for potential environmental liabilities, on a global basis, that we consider probable and for which a reasonable estimate of the probable liability could be made. Where existing data is sufficient to estimate the liability, that estimate has been used; where only a range of probable liabilities is available and no amount within that range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. As assessments and remediation activities progress at each site, these liabilities are reviewed to reflect new information as it becomes available. These liabilities are undiscounted. The estimated liabilities above do not take into account any claims for recoveries from insurance or third parties. It is our policy to record probable recoveries that are either available through settlement or anticipated to be recovered through negotiation or litigation as assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. No amounts were recorded for probable recoveries at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Actual costs to be incurred at identified sites may vary from our estimates. Based on our current knowledge of the identified sites, we are unable to estimate with reasonable certainty future costs which may exceed amounts already recognized. CUSTOMS LITIGATION In 2002, we began protesting the classification and 6% duty rate then being applied by the U.S. government on imports of our laminate flooring. After administrative denial of several of these protests, we filed a lawsuit against the United States in the U.S. Court of International Trade (New York), challenging the U.S. government's classification and duty rate and its administrative denial of our protests. With the agreement of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), Armstrong's case was placed on the reserve calendar pending resolution of two test cases challenging the classification and applicable duty rate of similar laminate flooring. The test cases were decided in 2008 by the U.S. Court of International Trade, which found in favor of the U.S. government. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In September 2009 the Court of Appeals reversed the decisions of the Court of International Trade and found that the laminate flooring in the test cases should have been classified differently, and that a 3.2% duty rate should have been applied. Upon expiration of the U.S. government's period to file notice of further appeals, we filed a stipulation request with the DOJ to stipulate that our case covered imports of laminate flooring which were like goods for which the 3.2% duty rate likewise should apply. After review by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs"), the DOJ agreed to our proposed stipulation, which was approved by the U.S. Court of International Trade in March 2010. The stipulation provided a refund of a portion of duties paid by us on the imported laminate flooring at issue in the case, and further allows us to recover refunds on additional entries of laminate flooring which were properly protested. We have sought refunds on protested imports of laminate flooring from April 2001 through January 2007, when the classification was corrected by statute. We received refunds in 2010 of $9.7 million, $9.5 million of which was received in the first nine months of 2010. No significant refunds have been received in 2011 to date, and no significant future refunds are anticipated. ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY PETITION On October 21, 2010, a coalition of U.S. producers of multilayered wood flooring (not including Armstrong) filed antidumping ("AD") and countervailing duty ("CVD") petitions regarding multilayered hardwood flooring from China. The AD petition requests that the Department of Commerce impose duties of up to 269% on imports of multilayered hardwood flooring, which it claims is needed to offset unfair pricing from Chinese imports that injure the U.S. industry. The CVD petition requests an unspecified level of duties be imposed on importers to offset alleged unfair subsidies provided by the Chinese government (such as the undervaluation of the Chinese currency, various tax benefits for foreign-invested enterprises, tax and tariff exemptions on imported equipment, and electricity being provided at artificially low rates). We produce multilayered wood flooring domestically and import multilayered wood flooring from suppliers in China. We also have a plant in China that manufactures multilayered wood flooring for export to the U.S. We are specifically mentioned in the AD and CVD petitions as an importer. Under the U.S. AD and CVD laws, a U.S. importer may be responsible for the payment of any antidumping and countervailing duties. In March 2011, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced its preliminary determination of countervailing duties on imports of engineered wood flooring from China. The countervailing duty rate that will apply to shipments from our China plant is 2.25% of import value, which is the rate that is expected to apply to most of the companies that cooperated in the investigation. As a result, U.S. Customs will begin collecting a cash deposit (or bond) on imports of engineered wood flooring from China at these preliminary rates. This preliminary determination became effective on April 6, 2011. Subsequent to the preliminary determination, the World Trade Organization ("WTO") determined that the U.S. cannot impose on Chinese producers both countervailing duties and treatment of China as a non-market economy for antidumping purposes. The WTO decision echoes an earlier decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade which raised questions regarding the U.S. practice. At this time, the specific implications for pending cases such as ours remain unclear. On May 26, 2011, the Department of Commerce announced its preliminary determination of antidumping duties on imports of engineered wood flooring from China. Initially, the duty rate on shipments from our China plant was set at 10.88% of import value. This rate was expected to apply to most of the companies that cooperated in the investigation. On June 20, 2011, the Department of Commerce modified its earlier finding and reduced the rate to 6.78%, retroactive to May 26, 2011. As a result, U.S. Customs began collecting a cash deposit (or bond) on imports of engineered wood flooring from China at these preliminary rates. On October 12, 2011, the Department of Commerce announced its final determination for both countervailing duties (CVD) and antidumping duties (AD). The final rates are 1.5%(CVD) and 3.31%(AD). These rates will be retroactive to the dates of the preliminary determinations, and will be credited against the preliminary rates. On November 9, 2011, the International Trade Commission is scheduled to vote as to whether imports of multilayered wood flooring from China materially injure, or threaten material injury to, the domestic industry. If the ITC finds no such injury or threatened injury, no AD or CVD order will be issued and importers will be entitled to the return of duties previously paid into escrow. We are unable to predict the final outcome of this matter. However, based on the final rates announced by the Department of Commerce, this matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. OTHER CLAIMS We are involved in various lawsuits, claims and other legal matters from time to time that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business, including claims and legal actions involving our products, intellectual property, contracts with suppliers and distributors, employees and other matters. While complete assurance cannot be given to the outcome of these proceedings, we do not currently believe that any of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.

Litigation And Related Matters

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Litigation And Related Matters [Abstract]

NOTE 19. LITIGATION AND RELATED MATTERS

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Environmental Expenditures

Our manufacturing and research facilities are affected by various federal, state and local requirements relating to the discharge of materials and the protection of the environment. We make expenditures necessary for compliance with applicable environmental requirements at each of our operating facilities. These regulatory requirements continually change, therefore we cannot predict with certainty future expenditures associated with compliance with environmental requirements.

Environmental Remediation

Summary

We are actively involved in proceedings under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), and similar state "Superfund" laws at several off-site locations. We have also been investigating and/or remediating environmental contamination allegedly resulting from past industrial activity at several current or former plant sites. In a few cases, we are one of several potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") which have potential liability for the required investigation and remediation of each site. In those cases, we have agreed to jointly fund that required investigation and remediation, while preserving our defenses to the liability. We may also have rights of contribution or reimbursement from other parties or coverage under applicable insurance policies.

Estimates of our future environmental liability at the Superfund sites and current or former plant sites are based on evaluations of currently available facts regarding each individual site. We consider factors such as our activities associated with the site, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations and prior company experience in remediating contaminated sites. Although current law imposes joint and several liability on all parties at Superfund sites, our contribution to the remediation of these sites is expected to be limited by the number of other companies potentially liable for site remediation. As a result, our estimated liability reflects only our expected share. In determining the probability of contribution, we consider the solvency of other parties, whether liability is being disputed, the terms of any existing agreements and experience with similar matters, and the effect of our Chapter 11 reorganization upon the validity of the claim.

Specific Events

In August 2010, we entered into a Consent Order with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ("ODEQ"), along with Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. ("Kaiser"), and Owens Corning Sales LLC ("OC"), with respect to our St. Helens, Oregon ceilings facility, which was previously owned by Kaiser and then OC. The Consent Order, which replaces a previous order of the ODEQ requiring us to investigate and remediate hazardous substances present at the facility, requires that we and Kaiser complete a remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS") on the portion of the site owned by us. The Consent Order further requires us, Kaiser and OC to conduct an RI/FS in the adjacent Scappoose Bay. Our current estimate of our future liability at the site relates to the investigation work required by the Consent Order and to the currently projected cost of possible remedies for certain portions of the property owned by us. However, the RI/FS for the portion of the property owned by us is not yet complete. It is probable that additional corrective action for the portion of the property owned by us will be required. Such corrective action could result in additional costs greater than currently estimated and, consequently, those costs may be material. At this time, we are unable to estimate with reasonable certainty the total costs that we may ultimately incur with respect to the Scappoose Bay, although such amounts may be material.

Costs and responsibilities for the RI/FS for certain portions of the St. Helens property owned by us continue to be shared with Kaiser pursuant to an agreement between Kaiser and us. Limited contributions are also being made by ODEQ pursuant to its settlement with OC for OC's liabilities for the property. Contemporaneously with the execution of the Consent Order, we, Kaiser and OC also entered into a cost allocation agreement for the investigation and possible remediation of the Scappoose Bay.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has listed two landfills located on a portion of our ceilings facility in Macon, Georgia, along with the former Macon Naval Ordnance Plant landfill adjacent to our property, and portions of Rocky Creek (collectively the "Macon Site") as a Superfund site on the National Priorities List due to the presence of contaminants, most notably PCBs. In September 2010 we entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for a Removal Action with the EPA to investigate PCB contamination in one of the landfills on our property that is a portion of the Superfund Site. Our current estimate of our future liability includes costs for investigative work that we agreed to perform under the EPA order. Additionally, we will ultimately incur expenses for closure or some form of remedial action with respect to the landfill. While those amounts are not estimable at this time, they may be material. Additionally, it is probable that we will incur field investigation, engineering and oversight costs associated with an RI/FS with respect to the remainder of the Superfund site, including Rocky Creek. We, along with other parties, may also ultimately incur costs in remedying contamination discovered during the RI/FS. At this time, we are not able to estimate with reasonable certainty the amounts we may ultimately incur with respect to those activities, although such amounts may be material.

Summary of Financial Position

Liabilities of $7.8 million and $8.3 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, were recorded for potential environmental liabilities, on a global basis, that we consider probable and for which a reasonable estimate of the probable liability could be made. Where existing data is sufficient to estimate the liability, that estimate has been used; where only a range of probable liabilities is available and no amount within that range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. As assessments and remediation activities progress at each site, these liabilities are reviewed to reflect new information as it becomes available. These liabilities are undiscounted.

The estimated liabilities above do not take into account any claims for recoveries from insurance or third parties. It is our policy to record probable recoveries that are either available through settlement or anticipated to be recovered through negotiation or litigation as assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. No amounts were recorded for probable recoveries at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Actual costs to be incurred at identified sites may vary from our estimates. Based on our current knowledge of the identified sites, we are unable to estimate with reasonable certainty future costs which may exceed amounts already recognized.

CUSTOMS LITIGATION

In 2002, we began protesting the classification and 6% duty rate then being applied by the U.S. government on imports of our laminate flooring. After administrative denial of several of these protests, we filed a lawsuit against the United States in the U.S. Court of International Trade (New York), challenging the U.S. government's classification and duty rate and its administrative denial of our protests. With the agreement of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), Armstrong's case was placed on the reserve calendar pending resolution of two test cases challenging the classification and applicable duty rate of similar laminate flooring. The test cases were decided in 2008 by the U.S. Court of International Trade, which found in favor of the U.S. government. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In September 2009 the Court of Appeals reversed the decisions of the Court of International Trade and found that the laminate flooring in the test cases should have been classified differently, and that a 3.2% duty rate should have been applied. Upon expiration of the U.S. government's period to file notice of further appeals, we filed a stipulation request with the DOJ to stipulate that our case covered imports of laminate flooring which were like goods for which the 3.2% duty rate likewise should apply. After review by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs"), the DOJ agreed to our proposed stipulation, which was approved by the U.S. Court of International Trade in March 2010. The stipulation provided a refund of a portion of duties paid by us on the imported laminate flooring at issue in the case, and further allows us to recover refunds on additional entries of laminate flooring which were properly protested. We have sought refunds on protested imports of laminate flooring from April 2001 through January 2007, when the classification was corrected by statute. We received refunds in 2010 of $9.7 million, $9.5 million of which was received in the first nine months of 2010. No significant refunds have been received in 2011 to date, and no significant future refunds are anticipated.

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY PETITION

On October 21, 2010, a coalition of U.S. producers of multilayered wood flooring (not including Armstrong) filed antidumping ("AD") and countervailing duty ("CVD") petitions regarding multilayered hardwood flooring from China. The AD petition requests that the Department of Commerce impose duties of up to 269% on imports of multilayered hardwood flooring, which it claims is needed to offset unfair pricing from Chinese imports that injure the U.S. industry. The CVD petition requests an unspecified level of duties be imposed on importers to offset alleged unfair subsidies provided by the Chinese government (such as the undervaluation of the Chinese currency, various tax benefits for foreign-invested enterprises, tax and tariff exemptions on imported equipment, and electricity being provided at artificially low rates).

We produce multilayered wood flooring domestically and import multilayered wood flooring from suppliers in China. We also have a plant in China that manufactures multilayered wood flooring for export to the U.S. We are specifically mentioned in the AD and CVD petitions as an importer. Under the U.S. AD and CVD laws, a U.S. importer may be responsible for the payment of any antidumping and countervailing duties.

In March 2011, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced its preliminary determination of countervailing duties on imports of engineered wood flooring from China. The countervailing duty rate that will apply to shipments from our China plant is 2.25% of import value, which is the rate that is expected to apply to most of the companies that cooperated in the investigation. As a result, U.S. Customs will begin collecting a cash deposit (or bond) on imports of engineered wood flooring from China at these preliminary rates. This preliminary determination became effective on April 6, 2011.

Subsequent to the preliminary determination, the World Trade Organization ("WTO") determined that the U.S. cannot impose on Chinese producers both countervailing duties and treatment of China as a non-market economy for antidumping purposes. The WTO decision echoes an earlier decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade which raised questions regarding the U.S. practice. At this time, the specific implications for pending cases such as ours remain unclear.

On May 26, 2011, the Department of Commerce announced its preliminary determination of antidumping duties on imports of engineered wood flooring from China. Initially, the duty rate on shipments from our China plant was set at 10.88% of import value. This rate was expected to apply to most of the companies that cooperated in the investigation. On June 20, 2011, the Department of Commerce modified its earlier finding and reduced the rate to 6.78%, retroactive to May 26, 2011. As a result, U.S. Customs began collecting a cash deposit (or bond) on imports of engineered wood flooring from China at these preliminary rates.

On October 12, 2011, the Department of Commerce announced its final determination for both countervailing duties (CVD) and antidumping duties (AD). The final rates are 1.5%(CVD) and 3.31%(AD). These rates will be retroactive to the dates of the preliminary determinations, and will be credited against the preliminary rates. On November 9, 2011, the International Trade Commission is scheduled to vote as to whether imports of multilayered wood flooring from China materially injure, or threaten material injury to, the domestic industry. If the ITC finds no such injury or threatened injury, no AD or CVD order will be issued and importers will be entitled to the return of duties previously paid into escrow.

We are unable to predict the final outcome of this matter. However, based on the final rates announced by the Department of Commerce, this matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

OTHER CLAIMS

We are involved in various lawsuits, claims and other legal matters from time to time that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business, including claims and legal actions involving our products, intellectual property, contracts with suppliers and distributors, employees and other matters. While complete assurance cannot be given to the outcome of these proceedings, we do not currently believe that any of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.