Litigation And Related Matters	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Litigation And Related Matters [Abstract]
Litigation And Related Matters	NOTE 18. LITIGATION AND RELATED MATTERS ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Environmental Compliance 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 Sites Summary We are actively involved in the investigation, closure and/or remediation of existing or potential environmental contamination under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and state or international Superfund and similar type environmental laws at several domestically- and internationally-owned, formerly owned and non-owned locations allegedly resulting from past industrial activity. In a few cases, we are one of several potentially responsible parties and have agreed to jointly fund the 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. We are currently pursuing coverage and recoveries under those policies with respect to certain of the sites, but we are unable to predict the outcome or costs of these proceedings. Estimates of our future liability at the environmental 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, the site activities 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 Material Events St Helens, OR In August 2010, we entered into a Consent Order (the “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, OR Building Products 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 (“Owned Property”), which is comprised of Upland and Lowland areas. The Consent Order further requires us, Kaiser and OC to conduct an RI/FS in the In-Water area of the adjacent Scappoose Bay. We are currently in an investigation phase for both the Owned Property and the Scappoose Bay and all draft investigative and risk assessment reports have been submitted for review to ODEQ. At this time, we have determined that it is probable that remedial action for certain portions of the Owned Property will be required. The current estimate of our future liability at the site includes the known investigation work required by the Consent Order and the current projected cost of possible remedies for certain portions of the Owned Property. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate any remediation costs that we may ultimately incur with respect to other portions of the Owned Property or the Scappoose Bay, although such costs may be material. If additional investigative or remedial action is required by ODEQ, it could result in additional costs greater than the amounts currently estimated and those costs may be material. Costs and responsibilities for investigation, including the current RI/FS for the Owned Property continue to be shared with Kaiser pursuant to a cost sharing agreement with Kaiser. Contemporaneously with the execution of the Consent Order, we, Kaiser and OC also entered into a separate cost sharing agreement for both the investigation and possible remediation of the Scappoose Bay. Kaiser’s shares under the cost sharing agreements are being funded by certain insurance policies, which comprise substantially all of Kaiser’s assets. If Kaiser and OC are unwilling or unable to fulfill their obligations under the cost sharing agreements, or seek to contest or challenge the allocations, or if Kaiser’s insurance policies are unable to fund Kaiser’s shares, it could result in additional cost to us greater than the amounts currently estimated and those costs may be material. The principal contaminants at the St. Helens site are arsenic and dioxin compounds from historic operations by prior owners of the plant. As part of the investigation on the site pursuant to the Consent Order, we conducted an analysis of the raw materials used in our manufacturing processes at the St. Helens facility to identify possible sources of these same contaminants. Our testing found low levels of naturally occurring dioxin in sourced clay, known as ball clay, used in the production of some of our fire-retardant products at our St. Helens manufacturing facility. Based on the data from the soil and sediment samples from our St. Helens property and the data from the ball clay, we do not believe that the presence of dioxin in our raw material will have a material impact on our ultimate liability at the site. In addition, consistent with our health and safety policies, we tested employee exposure levels at two facilities representative of our handling procedures at all plants that use this ball clay and, as a result of such testing, do not believe that the ball clay poses a hazard to our employees based on applicable regulatory standards. Based on the manufacturing process and the amount of raw material utilized, we also believe that the dioxin levels in our finished products do not pose a hazard to installers or consumers. While we have not received any claims related to this raw material or our fire-retardant products, there can be no assurance that the raw material or the finished products will not become the subject of legal claims or regulatory actions or that such claims or actions will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Macon, GA The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has listed two landfills located on a portion of our Building Products facility in Macon, GA, 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, the Wastewater Treatment Plant Landfill (the “WWTP Landfill”). We concluded the investigative phase of the Removal Action for the WWTP Landfill and submitted our final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) to the EPA. The EPA approved the EE/CA and issued an Action Memorandum in July 2013 selecting our recommended remedy for the Removal Action. In July 2014, the EPA and Armstrong executed an Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action for the WWTP Landfill. We will begin remedy design and implementation work under this Order. Our estimate of future liability includes costs for the remedial work for the WWTP Landfill. It is probable that we will incur field investigation, engineering and oversight costs associated with a RI/FS with respect to the remainder of the Superfund site, which includes the other landfill on our property, as well as areas on and adjacent to Armstrong’s property and Rocky Creek (the “Remaining Site”). We have not yet entered into an Order with the EPA for the Remaining Site and, as a result, have not yet commenced an investigation of this portion of the site. Accordingly, we are able to estimate only a small portion of the probable costs that may be associated with the RI/FS for the Remaining Site. We anticipate, however, that the EPA may require significant investigative work for the Remaining Site and that we may ultimately incur costs in remediating any contamination discovered during the RI/FS. We are unable to reasonably estimate the total costs associated with the investigation work or any resulting remediation therefrom, although such amounts may be material. Elizabeth City, NC This site is a former cabinet manufacturing facility that was operated by Triangle Pacific Corporation, now known as Armstrong Wood Products, Inc. (“Triangle Pacific”) from 1977 until 1996. The site was formerly owned by the U.S. Navy (“Navy”) and Westinghouse, now CBS Corporation (“CBS”). We assumed ownership of the site when we acquired the stock of Triangle Pacific in 1998. Prior to our acquisition, the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources listed the site as a hazardous waste site. In 1997, Triangle Pacific entered into a cost sharing agreement with Westinghouse whereby the parties agreed to share equally in costs associated with investigation and potential remediation. In 2000, Triangle Pacific and CBS entered into an RI/FS with the EPA for the site. In 2007, we and CBS entered into an agreement with the Navy whereby the Navy agreed to pay one third of defined past and future investigative costs up to a certain amount, which has now been exhausted. Although the parties initially submitted the RI/FS work plan to the EPA in 2004, the EPA did not approve the RI/FS work plan until August 2011. We submitted the draft Remedial Investigative and Risk Assessments in the first quarter of 2014 and will be conducting supplemental investigative work based upon agency comments to those reports. We are unable to reasonably estimate any additional investigative costs or determine whether remediation will be required. If remediation is required, the related costs may be material, although we expect these costs to be shared with CBS and the Navy. Summary of Financial Position Liabilities of $7.2 million at September 30, 2014 and $8.3 million at December 31, 2013 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 material amounts were recorded for probable recoveries at September 30, 2014 or December 31, 2013. Actual costs to be incurred at identified sites may vary from our estimates. Based on our knowledge of the identified sites, it is not possible to reasonably estimate future costs in excess of amounts already recognized. MULTI-EMPLOYER PENSION WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY CLAIM In February 2013, we received a demand notice from the Fund of a deemed withdrawal relating to the sale of our cabinets business to AIP in 2012. The Fund claims that the sale triggered a withdrawal liability to the Fund relating to unfunded vested plan benefits attributable to our role as a contributing employer under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, notwithstanding the assumption and maintenance by AIP of ongoing contribution obligations under the applicable union bargaining agreement. The claimed amount is $15.2 million, payable in a lump-sum or over 20 years on a quarterly basis. Pursuant to the demand notice, we provided information and reviewed the determination with the Fund, and made regular quarterly payments under protest pending resolution of the dispute. In September 2013, the Fund informed us that it disagrees with our position that the sale transaction did not trigger a withdrawal liability. In March 2014, the Fund informed us that AIP withdrew from the Fund effective December 12, 2013. Under our sale agreements with AIP, we have agreed to indemnify AIP with respect to a portion (not to exceed $10.0 million) of any potential withdrawal liability that may be incurred by AIP in the event of a withdrawal by AIP from the Fund, but such indemnities only apply in the event that the sale of assets transaction itself did not trigger withdrawal liability. Based upon the quarterly payments already made by us and initial settlement discussions with the Fund, we recorded an additional charge of $3.3 million during the second quarter of 2014 within Discontinued Operations (due to the association with the divestiture of the cabinets business). In August 2014, we entered into a settlement agreement with the Fund to resolve this matter for $10.3 million, including a complete release of all claims against us. As a result of the settlement, we recorded an additional charge of $0.3 million during the third quarter of 2014 within Discontinued Operations. Payment was made to the Fund in the third quarter of 2014. ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES In October 2010, a coalition of U.S. producers of multilayered wood flooring (not including Armstrong) filed petitions seeking antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duties (“CVD”) with the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against imports of multilayered hardwood flooring from China. The AD petition requested duties of up to 269% on imports of multilayered hardwood flooring, which it claimed were needed to offset unfair pricing from Chinese imports that injure the U.S. industry. The CVD petition requested an unspecified level of duties be imposed on importers to offset alleged unfair subsidies provided by the Chinese government. We produce multilayered wood flooring domestically and import multilayered wood flooring from third party suppliers in China. We also had a plant in Kunshan, China (“Armstrong Kunshan”) that manufactured multilayered wood flooring for export to the U.S., which we closed in the third quarter of 2014. We were 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 response to the petitions, the DOC conducted its initial original investigations and issued CVD and AD orders in December 2011. Pursuant to the orders, Armstrong Kunshan’s assigned duty deposit rates were 1.5% (CVD) and 3.31% (AD). These rates became effective in the form of additional duty deposits. These rates applied retrospectively as of April 6, 2011 (CVD) and May 26, 2011 (AD). Following the issuance of the CVD and AD orders, appeals were filed by several parties, including Armstrong, challenging various aspects of the determinations by the DOC, including certain aspects that may impact the validity of the orders. Armstrong is participating in the remaining appeal of these orders, which is currently expected to result in additional court decisions in 2014 and 2015. The DOC is currently conducting annual administrative reviews of the AD and CVD orders it earlier issued. In 2013, Armstrong Kunshan was selected for individual review as a mandatory respondent in the first annual administrative review covering AD duty deposits for all entries of the subject merchandise from the original preliminary determination through November 30, 2012, which was the end of the initial period of review. In May 2014, the DOC issued a final AD rate of 0.00% for Armstrong Kunshan in that first administrative review. In June 2014, the DOC issued amended final results for that review, for which Armstrong Kunshan’s AD rate remained 0.00% resulting in a duty deposit refund to us. The second annual administrative AD review is currently ongoing and Armstrong was not selected as a mandatory respondent. We are unable to predict the outcome of the AD administrative reviews, but do not expect them to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In January 2014, the DOC issued a preliminary CVD rate of 0.9% for Armstrong Kunshan as part of the first annual administrative review of the CVD order. In August 2014, the DOC issued a final CVD rate of 0.98% for Armstrong Kunshan, resulting in a duty deposit refund for us. The second annual administrative CVD review is currently ongoing and Armstrong was not selected as a mandatory respondent. We are unable to predict the outcome of the CVD administrative reviews, but we do not expect them to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The closure of Armstrong Kunshan is not expected to materially impact the annual administrative reviews or the resulting AD and CVD orders for the periods under review. OTHER CLAIMS We are involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and other legal matters from time to time that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business, including matters involving our products, intellectual property, relationships with suppliers, distributors, relationships with competitors, employees and other matters. While complete assurance cannot be given to the outcome of these proceedings, we do not 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.

NOTE 18. LITIGATION AND RELATED MATTERS

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Environmental Compliance

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 Sites

Summary

We are actively involved in the investigation, closure and/or remediation of existing or potential environmental contamination under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and state or international Superfund and similar type environmental laws at several domestically- and internationally-owned, formerly owned and non-owned locations allegedly resulting from past industrial activity. In a few cases, we are one of several potentially responsible parties and have agreed to jointly fund the 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. We are currently pursuing coverage and recoveries under those policies with respect to certain of the sites, but we are unable to predict the outcome or costs of these proceedings.

Estimates of our future liability at the environmental 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, the site activities 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 Material Events

St Helens, OR

In August 2010, we entered into a Consent Order (the “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, OR Building Products 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 (“Owned Property”), which is comprised of Upland and Lowland areas. The Consent Order further requires us, Kaiser and OC to conduct an RI/FS in the In-Water area of the adjacent Scappoose Bay. We are currently in an investigation phase for both the Owned Property and the Scappoose Bay and all draft investigative and risk assessment reports have been submitted for review to ODEQ. At this time, we have determined that it is probable that remedial action for certain portions of the Owned Property will be required. The current estimate of our future liability at the site includes the known investigation work required by the Consent Order and the current projected cost of possible remedies for certain portions of the Owned Property. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate any remediation costs that we may ultimately incur with respect to other portions of the Owned Property or the Scappoose Bay, although such costs may be material. If additional investigative or remedial action is required by ODEQ, it could result in additional costs greater than the amounts currently estimated and those costs may be material.

Costs and responsibilities for investigation, including the current RI/FS for the Owned Property continue to be shared with Kaiser pursuant to a cost sharing agreement with Kaiser. Contemporaneously with the execution of the Consent Order, we, Kaiser and OC also entered into a separate cost sharing agreement for both the investigation and possible remediation of the Scappoose Bay. Kaiser’s shares under the cost sharing agreements are being funded by certain insurance policies, which comprise substantially all of Kaiser’s assets. If Kaiser and OC are unwilling or unable to fulfill their obligations under the cost sharing agreements, or seek to contest or challenge the allocations, or if Kaiser’s insurance policies are unable to fund Kaiser’s shares, it could result in additional cost to us greater than the amounts currently estimated and those costs may be material.

The principal contaminants at the St. Helens site are arsenic and dioxin compounds from historic operations by prior owners of the plant. As part of the investigation on the site pursuant to the Consent Order, we conducted an analysis of the raw materials used in our manufacturing processes at the St. Helens facility to identify possible sources of these same contaminants. Our testing found low levels of naturally occurring dioxin in sourced clay, known as ball clay, used in the production of some of our fire-retardant products at our St. Helens manufacturing facility. Based on the data from the soil and sediment samples from our St. Helens property and the data from the ball clay, we do not believe that the presence of dioxin in our raw material will have a material impact on our ultimate liability at the site. In addition, consistent with our health and safety policies, we tested employee exposure levels at two facilities representative of our handling procedures at all plants that use this ball clay and, as a result of such testing, do not believe that the ball clay poses a hazard to our employees based on applicable regulatory standards. Based on the manufacturing process and the amount of raw material utilized, we also believe that the dioxin levels in our finished products do not pose a hazard to installers or consumers. While we have not received any claims related to this raw material or our fire-retardant products, there can be no assurance that the raw material or the finished products will not become the subject of legal claims or regulatory actions or that such claims or actions will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Macon, GA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has listed two landfills located on a portion of our Building Products facility in Macon, GA, 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, the Wastewater Treatment Plant Landfill (the “WWTP Landfill”). We concluded the investigative phase of the Removal Action for the WWTP Landfill and submitted our final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) to the EPA. The EPA approved the EE/CA and issued an Action Memorandum in July 2013 selecting our recommended remedy for the Removal Action. In July 2014, the EPA and Armstrong executed an Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action for the WWTP Landfill. We will begin remedy design and implementation work under this Order. Our estimate of future liability includes costs for the remedial work for the WWTP Landfill.

It is probable that we will incur field investigation, engineering and oversight costs associated with a RI/FS with respect to the remainder of the Superfund site, which includes the other landfill on our property, as well as areas on and adjacent to Armstrong’s property and Rocky Creek (the “Remaining Site”). We have not yet entered into an Order with the EPA for the Remaining Site and, as a result, have not yet commenced an investigation of this portion of the site. Accordingly, we are able to estimate only a small portion of the probable costs that may be associated with the RI/FS for the Remaining Site. We anticipate, however, that the EPA may require significant investigative work for the Remaining Site and that we may ultimately incur costs in remediating any contamination discovered during the RI/FS. We are unable to reasonably estimate the total costs associated with the investigation work or any resulting remediation therefrom, although such amounts may be material.

Elizabeth City, NC

This site is a former cabinet manufacturing facility that was operated by Triangle Pacific Corporation, now known as Armstrong Wood Products, Inc. (“Triangle Pacific”) from 1977 until 1996. The site was formerly owned by the U.S. Navy (“Navy”) and Westinghouse, now CBS Corporation (“CBS”). We assumed ownership of the site when we acquired the stock of Triangle Pacific in 1998. Prior to our acquisition, the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources listed the site as a hazardous waste site. In 1997, Triangle Pacific entered into a cost sharing agreement with Westinghouse whereby the parties agreed to share equally in costs associated with investigation and potential remediation. In 2000, Triangle Pacific and CBS entered into an RI/FS with the EPA for the site. In 2007, we and CBS entered into an agreement with the Navy whereby the Navy agreed to pay one third of defined past and future investigative costs up to a certain amount, which has now been exhausted. Although the parties initially submitted the RI/FS work plan to the EPA in 2004, the EPA did not approve the RI/FS work plan until August 2011. We submitted the draft Remedial Investigative and Risk Assessments in the first quarter of 2014 and will be conducting supplemental investigative work based upon agency comments to those reports. We are unable to reasonably estimate any additional investigative costs or determine whether remediation will be required. If remediation is required, the related costs may be material, although we expect these costs to be shared with CBS and the Navy.

Summary of Financial Position

Liabilities of $7.2 million at September 30, 2014 and $8.3 million at December 31, 2013 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 material amounts were recorded for probable recoveries at September 30, 2014 or December 31, 2013.

Actual costs to be incurred at identified sites may vary from our estimates. Based on our knowledge of the identified sites, it is not possible to reasonably estimate future costs in excess of amounts already recognized.

MULTI-EMPLOYER PENSION WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY CLAIM

In February 2013, we received a demand notice from the Fund of a deemed withdrawal relating to the sale of our cabinets business to AIP in 2012. The Fund claims that the sale triggered a withdrawal liability to the Fund relating to unfunded vested plan benefits attributable to our role as a contributing employer under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, notwithstanding the assumption and maintenance by AIP of ongoing contribution obligations under the applicable union bargaining agreement. The claimed amount is $15.2 million, payable in a lump-sum or over 20 years on a quarterly basis. Pursuant to the demand notice, we provided information and reviewed the determination with the Fund, and made regular quarterly payments under protest pending resolution of the dispute.

In September 2013, the Fund informed us that it disagrees with our position that the sale transaction did not trigger a withdrawal liability. In March 2014, the Fund informed us that AIP withdrew from the Fund effective December 12, 2013. Under our sale agreements with AIP, we have agreed to indemnify AIP with respect to a portion (not to exceed $10.0 million) of any potential withdrawal liability that may be incurred by AIP in the event of a withdrawal by AIP from the Fund, but such indemnities only apply in the event that the sale of assets transaction itself did not trigger withdrawal liability.

Based upon the quarterly payments already made by us and initial settlement discussions with the Fund, we recorded an additional charge of $3.3 million during the second quarter of 2014 within Discontinued Operations (due to the association with the divestiture of the cabinets business).

In August 2014, we entered into a settlement agreement with the Fund to resolve this matter for $10.3 million, including a complete release of all claims against us. As a result of the settlement, we recorded an additional charge of $0.3 million during the third quarter of 2014 within Discontinued Operations. Payment was made to the Fund in the third quarter of 2014.

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES

In October 2010, a coalition of U.S. producers of multilayered wood flooring (not including Armstrong) filed petitions seeking antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duties (“CVD”) with the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against imports of multilayered hardwood flooring from China. The AD petition requested duties of up to 269% on imports of multilayered hardwood flooring, which it claimed were needed to offset unfair pricing from Chinese imports that injure the U.S. industry. The CVD petition requested an unspecified level of duties be imposed on importers to offset alleged unfair subsidies provided by the Chinese government.

We produce multilayered wood flooring domestically and import multilayered wood flooring from third party suppliers in China. We also had a plant in Kunshan, China (“Armstrong Kunshan”) that manufactured multilayered wood flooring for export to the U.S., which we closed in the third quarter of 2014. We were 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 response to the petitions, the DOC conducted its initial original investigations and issued CVD and AD orders in December 2011. Pursuant to the orders, Armstrong Kunshan’s assigned duty deposit rates were 1.5% (CVD) and 3.31% (AD). These rates became effective in the form of additional duty deposits. These rates applied retrospectively as of April 6, 2011 (CVD) and May 26, 2011 (AD).

Following the issuance of the CVD and AD orders, appeals were filed by several parties, including Armstrong, challenging various aspects of the determinations by the DOC, including certain aspects that may impact the validity of the orders. Armstrong is participating in the remaining appeal of these orders, which is currently expected to result in additional court decisions in 2014 and 2015.

The DOC is currently conducting annual administrative reviews of the AD and CVD orders it earlier issued.

In 2013, Armstrong Kunshan was selected for individual review as a mandatory respondent in the first annual administrative review covering AD duty deposits for all entries of the subject merchandise from the original preliminary determination through November 30, 2012, which was the end of the initial period of review. In May 2014, the DOC issued a final AD rate of 0.00% for Armstrong Kunshan in that first administrative review. In June 2014, the DOC issued amended final results for that review, for which Armstrong Kunshan’s AD rate remained 0.00% resulting in a duty deposit refund to us. The second annual administrative AD review is currently ongoing and Armstrong was not selected as a mandatory respondent. We are unable to predict the outcome of the AD administrative reviews, but do not expect them to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In January 2014, the DOC issued a preliminary CVD rate of 0.9% for Armstrong Kunshan as part of the first annual administrative review of the CVD order. In August 2014, the DOC issued a final CVD rate of 0.98% for Armstrong Kunshan, resulting in a duty deposit refund for us. The second annual administrative CVD review is currently ongoing and Armstrong was not selected as a mandatory respondent. We are unable to predict the outcome of the CVD administrative reviews, but we do not expect them to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The closure of Armstrong Kunshan is not expected to materially impact the annual administrative reviews or the resulting AD and CVD orders for the periods under review.

OTHER CLAIMS

We are involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and other legal matters from time to time that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business, including matters involving our products, intellectual property, relationships with suppliers, distributors, relationships with competitors, employees and other matters. While complete assurance cannot be given to the outcome of these proceedings, we do not 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.