Litigation and Related Matters	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Related Matters	NOTE 21. 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. While these expenditures are not typically material, the applicable regulatory requirements continually change and, as a result, we cannot predict with certainty the amount, nature or timing of future expenditures associated with environmental compliance. 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 (“CERCLA”) and state Superfund and similar environmental laws at three domestically owned locations allegedly resulting from past industrial activity. In each location, we are one of multiple 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, including the Macon, GA site and the Elizabeth City, NC site, each of which is summarized below. These efforts have included two active and independent litigation matters against legacy primary and excess policy insurance carriers for recovery of fees and costs incurred by us in connection with our investigation and remediation activities for such sites. As described below, the litigation matter in Oregon relating to the St. Helens, OR site was dismissed in the second quarter of 2019 in connection with our settlement with the State of Oregon. Other than disclosed below, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or the timing of any recoveries, whether through settlement or otherwise. We are also unable to predict the extent to which any recoveries might cover our final share of investigation and remediation costs for these sites. Our final share of investigation and remediation costs may exceed any such recoveries, and such amounts net of insurance recoveries may be material. Between 2017 and 2019, we entered settlement agreements totaling $39.8 million with certain legacy insurance carriers to resolve ongoing litigation and recover fees and costs previously incurred by us in connection with certain environmental sites. These settlements were recorded as a $9.2 million reduction to cost of goods sold and a $30.6 million reduction to selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses reflecting the same income statement categories where environmental expenditures were historically recorded. In 2020, we entered into one new settlement agreement totaling $0.1 million. This settlement was recorded as a reduction to SG&A expenses. We anticipate that we may enter into additional settlement agreements in the future, which may or may not be material, with other legacy insurers to obtain reimbursement or contribution for environmental site expenses. 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 October 2006 Chapter 11 reorganization upon the validity of the claim, if any. 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, Oregon facility, which was previously owned by Kaiser and then OC. The Consent Order required the parties to complete a remedial investigation and feasibility study on the upland, lowland and in-water portions of the site. Through voluntary mediation in November 2017 with ODEQ, OC and Kaiser, we reached settlement with ODEQ documented in a Public Notice and proposed consent judgment (“Consent Judgment”); in exchange for a release from ODEQ for all contamination claims against us, we would pay $8.6 million to the State of Oregon and perform a previously scoped remedial action for the upland area. We submitted the settlement payment to ODEQ and completed the remedial action for the upland area in 2019. ODEQ approved a final Upland Operable Unit Remedial Action Construction Completion and Final Closeout Report and issued a Conditional No Further Action Determination, including the Easement and Equitable Servitude, which was recorded in Columbia County, Oregon. On February 24, 2020, ODEQ filed the Certification of Completion for the satisfactory completion of the work conducted by us pursuant to the Consent Judgment. As a result of the settlements with ODEQ and Kaiser, and these actions by ODEQ, we do not expect to incur any future material costs relating to this matter. Macon, GA The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) has listed two landfills located on a portion of our facility in Macon, GA, along with the former Macon Naval Ordnance Plant landfill adjacent to our property, portions of Rocky Creek, and certain tributaries leading to Rocky Creek (collectively, the “Macon Site”) as a Superfund site on the National Priorities List due to the presence of contaminants, most notably polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”). In September 2010, we entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for a Removal Action (the “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,” also known as “Operable Unit 1”). After completing an investigation of the WWTP Landfill and submitting our final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, the EPA issued an Action Memorandum in July 2013 selecting our recommended remedy for the Removal Action. The Operable Unit 1 response action for the WWTP Landfill is complete and the final report was submitted to the EPA on October 11, 2016. The EPA approved the final report on November 28, 2016, and a Post-Removal Control Plan (the “Plan”) was submitted to the EPA on March 28, 2017. That Plan will monitor the effectiveness of the WWTP Landfill response action over a five-year period and our estimate of future liabilities includes these tasks. It is probable that we will incur field investigation, engineering and oversight costs associated with a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“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 our property and Rocky Creek (the “Remaining Site,” also known as “Operable Unit 2”). On September 25, 2015, AWI and other Potential Responsible Parties (“PRPs”) received a Special Notice Letter from the EPA under CERCLA inviting AWI and the PRPs to enter into the negotiation of an agreement to conduct an RI/FS of Operable Unit 2. We and the other PRPs entered into a settlement agreement with the EPA effective September 18, 2018, in response to the Special Notice Letter to conduct the RI/FS. The PRPs submitted a complete RI/FS work plan in the second quarter of 2019, which the EPA approved on September 11, 2019. Investigative work on this portion of the site commenced in December 2019 and we anticipate that the EPA will require significant investigative work for Operable Unit 2. We may ultimately incur costs in remediating any contamination discovered during the RI/FS. The current estimate of future liability at this site includes only our estimated share of the costs of the investigative work that, at this time, we anticipate the EPA will require the PRPs to perform. We are unable to reasonably estimate our final share of the total costs associated with the investigation work or any resulting remediation therefrom, although such amounts may be material to any one quarter's or year's results of operations in the future. However, we do not expect the total future costs to have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or financial condition as the cash payments may be made over many years. 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” or “AWP”), 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 North Carolina 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 Administrative Order on Consent to conduct 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. The EPA approved the RI/FS work plan in August 2011. In January 2014, we submitted the draft Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment reports and conducted supplemental investigative work based upon agency comments to those reports. In connection with the separation of AFI in 2016, we agreed to retain any legacy environmental liabilities associated with the AWP site. The EPA published an Interim Action Proposed Plan for the site in April 2018 seeking public comment through June 7, 2018. The EPA has evaluated comments, including ours, and has published its Interim Record Of Decision selecting an interim cleanup approach. On September 25, 2018, AWI and CBS received a Special Notice Letter from the EPA under CERCLA inviting AWI and CBS to enter into the negotiation of a settlement agreement to conduct or finance the response action at the site. During the third quarter of 2018, we increased our reserve for the cost of the interim cleanup, which we expect to be shared with CBS and the Navy. In response to the September 2018 Special Notice Letter, AWI and CBS submitted a good faith offer to EPA on May 28, 2019. The current estimate of future liability at this site includes only our estimated share of the costs of the interim remedial action that, at this time, we anticipate the EPA will require the PRPs to perform. We are unable to reasonably estimate our final share of the total costs associated with the final remediation or any resulting remediation therefrom, although such amounts may be material to any one quarter's or year's results of operations in the future. However, we do not expect the total future costs to have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or financial condition as the cash payments may be made over many years. Summary of Financial Position Total liabilities of $1.5 million and $1.6 million as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively, were recorded for environmental liabilities that we consider probable and for which a reasonable estimate of the probable liability could be made. As of March 31, 2020, the total liabilities were reflected as other long-term liabilities. As of December 31, 2019, $0.1 million was reflected within Accounts payable and accrued expenses with respect to environmental liabilities. During the three months ended March 31, 2020, we did not record any additional reserves for environmental liabilities. During the three months ended March 31, 2019, we recorded $1.0 million of additional reserves for environmental liabilities. 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 and adjusted to reflect amounts actually incurred and paid. 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 insurance recoveries as assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets when probable. For insurance recoveries that are reimbursements of prior environmental expenditures, the income statement impact is recorded within cost of goods sold and SG&A expenses, which are the same income statement categories within which environmental expenditures were historically recorded. We also incur costs to pursue environmental insurance recoveries, which are expensed as incurred. Insurance recoveries in excess of historical environmental spending are recorded on the balance sheet as a part of other long-term liabilities and released as future environmental spending occurs or the liability is settled. 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. OTHER CLAIMS On September 8, 2017, Roxul USA, Inc. (d/b/a Rockfon) (“Rockfon”) filed litigation against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) alleging anticompetitive conduct seeking remedial measures and unspecified damages. Roxul USA, Inc. is a significant ceilings systems competitor with global headquarters in Europe and expanding operations in the Americas. On April 3, 2019, we entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Rockfon to fully resolve the litigation between us, and Rockfon filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (“Dismissal”) with the Court. Pursuant to the Dismissal, Rockfon formally dismissed all claims it had against AWI with prejudice. All claims in the litigation have been fully and finally dismissed and released with AWI making a payment to Rockfon for its costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to the settlement, both parties acknowledged that (a) AWI denies all claims of wrongdoing and makes no admission of wrongdoing or of the truth of any of the claims or allegations contained in Rockfon’s complaint or otherwise alleged in the litigation; (b) all AWI exclusive distribution locations (i.e., any location where a reseller has agreed to sell only AWI ceiling system products) will remain exclusive to AWI under their respective distribution agreements, and (c) in all other non-exclusive or “open” distribution locations, resellers are free to purchase and resell ceiling systems products of any manufacturer at their discretion. During the three months ended March 31, 2019, we incurred $19.7 million of expenses in connection with the matter, primarily relating to legal and professional fees incurred by us in connection with the litigation, including expenses and attorney’s fees paid under the settlement agreement. As a result of the settlement and Dismissal, we do not expect to incur additional future costs or expenses relating to the matter. We are involved in other various lawsuits, claims, investigations and other legal matters from time to time that arise in the ordinary course of business, including matters involving our products, intellectual property, relationships with suppliers, relationships with distributors, relationships with competitors, employees and other matters. From time to time, for example, we may be a party to litigation matters that involve product liability, tort liability and other claims under various allegations, including illness due to exposure to certain chemicals used in the workplace; or medical conditions arising from exposure to product ingredients or the presence of trace contaminants. Such allegations may involve multiple defendants and relate to legacy products that we and other defendants purportedly manufactured or sold. We believe that any current claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. For these matters, we also may have rights of contribution or reimbursement from other parties or coverage under applicable insurance policies. When applicable and appropriate, we will pursue coverage and recoveries under those policies, but are unable to predict the outcome of those demands. While complete assurance cannot be given to the outcome of these proceedings, we do not believe that any current claims, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.

Litigation and Related Matters

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 21. 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. While these expenditures are not typically material, the applicable regulatory requirements continually change and, as a result, we cannot predict with certainty the amount, nature or timing of future expenditures associated with environmental compliance.

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 (“CERCLA”) and state Superfund and similar environmental laws at three domestically owned locations allegedly resulting from past industrial activity.

In each location, we are one of multiple 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, including the Macon, GA site and the Elizabeth City, NC site, each of which is summarized below. These efforts have included two active and independent litigation matters against legacy primary and excess policy insurance carriers for recovery of fees and costs incurred by us in connection with our investigation and remediation activities for such sites. As described below, the litigation matter in Oregon relating to the St. Helens, OR site was dismissed in the second quarter of 2019 in connection with our settlement with the State of Oregon. Other than disclosed below, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or the timing of any recoveries, whether through settlement or otherwise. We are also unable to predict the extent to which any recoveries might cover our final share of investigation and remediation costs for these sites. Our final share of investigation and remediation costs may exceed any such recoveries, and such amounts net of insurance recoveries may be material.

Between 2017 and 2019, we entered settlement agreements totaling $39.8 million with certain legacy insurance carriers to resolve ongoing litigation and recover fees and costs previously incurred by us in connection with certain environmental sites. These settlements were recorded as a $9.2 million reduction to cost of goods sold and a $30.6 million reduction to selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses reflecting the same income statement categories where environmental expenditures were historically recorded. In 2020, we entered into one new settlement agreement totaling $0.1 million. This settlement was recorded as a reduction to SG&A expenses. We anticipate that we may enter into additional settlement agreements in the future, which may or may not be material, with other legacy insurers to obtain reimbursement or contribution for environmental site expenses.

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 October 2006 Chapter 11 reorganization upon the validity of the claim, if any.

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, Oregon facility, which was previously owned by Kaiser and then OC. The Consent Order required the parties to complete a remedial investigation and feasibility study on the upland, lowland and in-water portions of the site.

Through voluntary mediation in November 2017 with ODEQ, OC and Kaiser, we reached settlement with ODEQ documented in a Public Notice and proposed consent judgment (“Consent Judgment”); in exchange for a release from ODEQ for all contamination

claims against us, we would pay $8.6 million to the State of Oregon and perform a previously scoped remedial action for the upland area. We submitted the settlement payment to ODEQ and completed the remedial action for the upland area in 2019.

ODEQ approved a final Upland Operable Unit Remedial Action Construction Completion and Final Closeout Report and issued a Conditional No Further Action Determination, including the Easement and Equitable Servitude, which was recorded in Columbia County, Oregon. On February 24, 2020, ODEQ filed the Certification of Completion for the satisfactory completion of the work conducted by us pursuant to the Consent Judgment. As a result of the settlements with ODEQ and Kaiser, and these actions by ODEQ, we do not expect to incur any future material costs relating to this matter.

Macon, GA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) has listed two landfills located on a portion of our facility in Macon, GA, along with the former Macon Naval Ordnance Plant landfill adjacent to our property, portions of Rocky Creek, and certain tributaries leading to Rocky Creek (collectively, the “Macon Site”) as a Superfund site on the National Priorities List due to the presence of contaminants, most notably polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”).

In September 2010, we entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for a Removal Action (the “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,” also known as “Operable Unit 1”). After completing an investigation of the WWTP Landfill and submitting our final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, the EPA issued an Action Memorandum in July 2013 selecting our recommended remedy for the Removal Action. The Operable Unit 1 response action for the WWTP Landfill is complete and the final report was submitted to the EPA on October 11, 2016. The EPA approved the final report on November 28, 2016, and a Post-Removal Control Plan (the “Plan”) was submitted to the EPA on March 28, 2017. That Plan will monitor the effectiveness of the WWTP Landfill response action over a five-year period and our estimate of future liabilities includes these tasks.

It is probable that we will incur field investigation, engineering and oversight costs associated with a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“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 our property and Rocky Creek (the “Remaining Site,” also known as “Operable Unit 2”). On September 25, 2015, AWI and other Potential Responsible Parties (“PRPs”) received a Special Notice Letter from the EPA under CERCLA inviting AWI and the PRPs to enter into the negotiation of an agreement to conduct an RI/FS of Operable Unit 2. We and the other PRPs entered into a settlement agreement with the EPA effective September 18, 2018, in response to the Special Notice Letter to conduct the RI/FS. The PRPs submitted a complete RI/FS work plan in the second quarter of 2019, which the EPA approved on September 11, 2019. Investigative work on this portion of the site commenced in December 2019 and we anticipate that the EPA will require significant investigative work for Operable Unit 2. We may ultimately incur costs in remediating any contamination discovered during the RI/FS. The current estimate of future liability at this site includes only our estimated share of the costs of the investigative work that, at this time, we anticipate the EPA will require the PRPs to perform. We are unable to reasonably estimate our final share of the total costs associated with the investigation work or any resulting remediation therefrom, although such amounts may be material to any one quarter's or year's results of operations in the future. However, we do not expect the total future costs to have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or financial condition as the cash payments may be made over many years.

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” or “AWP”), 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 North Carolina 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 Administrative Order on Consent to conduct 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. The EPA approved the RI/FS work plan in August 2011. In January 2014, we submitted the draft Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment reports and conducted supplemental investigative work based upon agency comments to those reports. In connection with the separation of AFI in 2016, we agreed to retain any legacy environmental liabilities associated with the AWP site. The EPA published an Interim Action Proposed Plan for the site in April 2018 seeking public comment through June 7, 2018. The EPA has evaluated comments, including ours, and has published its Interim Record Of Decision selecting an interim cleanup approach. On September 25, 2018, AWI and CBS received a Special Notice Letter from the EPA under CERCLA inviting AWI and CBS to enter into the negotiation of a settlement agreement to conduct or finance the response action at the site. During the

third quarter of 2018, we increased our reserve for the cost of the interim cleanup, which we expect to be shared with CBS and the Navy. In response to the September 2018 Special Notice Letter, AWI and CBS submitted a good faith offer to EPA on May 28, 2019. The current estimate of future liability at this site includes only our estimated share of the costs of the interim remedial action that, at this time, we anticipate the EPA will require the PRPs to perform. We are unable to reasonably estimate our final share of the total costs associated with the final remediation or any resulting remediation therefrom, although such amounts may be material to any one quarter's or year's results of operations in the future. However, we do not expect the total future costs to have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or financial condition as the cash payments may be made over many years.

Summary of Financial Position

Total liabilities of $1.5 million and $1.6 million as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively, were recorded for environmental liabilities that we consider probable and for which a reasonable estimate of the probable liability could be made. As of March 31, 2020, the total liabilities were reflected as other long-term liabilities. As of December 31, 2019, $0.1 million was reflected within Accounts payable and accrued expenses with respect to environmental liabilities. During the three months ended March 31, 2020, we did not record any additional reserves for environmental liabilities. During the three months ended March 31, 2019, we recorded $1.0 million of additional reserves for environmental liabilities. 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 and adjusted to reflect amounts actually incurred and paid. 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 insurance recoveries as assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets when probable. For insurance recoveries that are reimbursements of prior environmental expenditures, the income statement impact is recorded within cost of goods sold and SG&A expenses, which are the same income statement categories within which environmental expenditures were historically recorded. We also incur costs to pursue environmental insurance recoveries, which are expensed as incurred. Insurance recoveries in excess of historical environmental spending are recorded on the balance sheet as a part of other long-term liabilities and released as future environmental spending occurs or the liability is settled.

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.

OTHER CLAIMS

On September 8, 2017, Roxul USA, Inc. (d/b/a Rockfon) (“Rockfon”) filed litigation against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) alleging anticompetitive conduct seeking remedial measures and unspecified damages. Roxul USA, Inc. is a significant ceilings systems competitor with global headquarters in Europe and expanding operations in the Americas. On April 3, 2019, we entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Rockfon to fully resolve the litigation between us, and Rockfon filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (“Dismissal”) with the Court. Pursuant to the Dismissal, Rockfon formally dismissed all claims it had against AWI with prejudice. All claims in the litigation have been fully and finally dismissed and released with AWI making a payment to Rockfon for its costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to the settlement, both parties acknowledged that (a) AWI denies all claims of wrongdoing and makes no admission of wrongdoing or of the truth of any of the claims or allegations contained in Rockfon’s complaint or otherwise alleged in the litigation; (b) all AWI exclusive distribution locations (i.e., any location where a reseller has agreed to sell only AWI ceiling system products) will remain exclusive to AWI under their respective distribution agreements, and (c) in all other non-exclusive or “open” distribution locations, resellers are free to purchase and resell ceiling systems products of any manufacturer at their discretion. During the three months ended March 31, 2019, we incurred $19.7 million of expenses in connection with the matter, primarily relating to legal and professional fees incurred by us in connection with the litigation, including expenses and attorney’s fees paid under the settlement agreement. As a result of the settlement and Dismissal, we do not expect to incur additional future costs or expenses relating to the matter.

We are involved in other various lawsuits, claims, investigations and other legal matters from time to time that arise in the ordinary course of business, including matters involving our products, intellectual property, relationships with suppliers, relationships with distributors, relationships with competitors, employees and other matters. From time to time, for example, we may be a party to litigation matters that involve product liability, tort liability and other claims under various allegations, including illness due to exposure to certain chemicals used in the workplace; or medical conditions arising from exposure to product ingredients or the presence of trace contaminants. Such allegations may involve multiple defendants and relate to legacy products that we and other defendants purportedly manufactured or sold. We believe that any current claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. For these matters, we also may have rights of contribution or reimbursement from other parties or coverage under applicable insurance policies. When applicable and appropriate, we will pursue coverage and recoveries under those policies, but are unable to predict the outcome of those demands. While complete assurance cannot be given to the outcome of these proceedings, we

do not believe that any current claims, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.