Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 29, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company is involved from time to time in litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which, after giving effect to existing insurance coverage, is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity. From time to time, the Company is also involved in proceedings and potential proceedings relating to environmental and product liability matters. Environmental Claims The Woodbridge, New Jersey facility is currently the subject of an investigation and/or remediation before the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) under ISRA Case No. E20030110 for the Company’s indirect wholly owned subsidiary, Gentek Building Products, Inc. (“Gentek”). The facility is currently leased by Gentek. Previous operations at the facility resulted in soil and groundwater contamination in certain areas of the property. In 1999, the property owner and Gentek signed a remediation agreement with NJDEP, pursuant to which the property owner and Gentek agreed to continue an investigation/remediation that had been commenced pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement with NJDEP. Under the remediation agreement, NJDEP required posting of a remediation funding source of approximately $100,000 that was provided by Gentek under a self-guarantee as of December 31, 2011. In March 2012, the self-guarantee was replaced by a $228,000 standby letter of credit provided to the NJDEP. In May 2013, the amount of the standby letter of credit was increased to $339,500. Although investigations at this facility are ongoing and it appears probable that a liability will be incurred, the Company cannot currently estimate the amount of liability that may be associated with this facility as the delineation process has not been completed. The Company believes this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Product Liability Claims On September 20, 2010, the Company and its subsidiary, Gentek Buildings Products, Inc. (“Gentek”), were named as defendants in an action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, captioned Donald Eliason, et al. v. Gentek Building Products, Inc., et al (the “Eliason complaint”). The complaint was filed by a number of individual plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class of owners of steel and aluminum siding products manufactured by the Company and Gentek or their predecessors. The plaintiffs assert a breach of express and implied warranty, along with related causes of action, claiming that an unspecified defect in the siding causes paint to peel off the metal and that the Company and Gentek have failed adequately to honor their warranty obligations to repair, replace or refinish the defective siding. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, restitution of monies paid to the defendants and an injunction against the claimed unlawful practices, together with attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. Since such time that the Eliason complaint was filed, seven additional putative class actions have been filed. On September 6, 2012, the Court issued an order granting defendants’ request for consolidation of all cases under a single caption, proceeding on a single track. The Court also ordered plaintiffs to file their single consolidated amended complaint by September 19, 2012, which plaintiffs did. On February 13, 2013, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the “Settlement”) with the named plaintiffs. The Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 5, 2013. On August 1, 2013 following a fairness hearing the Court issued a final judgment and order approving the Settlement (“Final Judgment and Order”). The Settlement will be effective on September 2, 2013 when the time period for appealing the Final Judgment and Order ends. The Settlement provides for the certification of a class for settlement purposes only of commercial and residential property owners who purchased steel siding manufactured and warranted by the Company during the period January 1, 1991 to the date on which notice of the proposed Settlement is first sent to settlement class members and whose siding allegedly experienced “Steel Peel,” which is characterized for the purposes of settlement by the separation of any layer of the finish on the steel siding from the steel siding itself. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Settlement, the Company has agreed that (1) the first time an eligible settlement class member submits a valid Steel Peel warranty claim for siding, the Company will, at its option, repair or replace the siding or, at such class member’s option, make a cash settlement payment to such class member equal to the cost to the Company of the repair or replacement option selected by the Company; (2) the second time such class member submits a valid Steel Peel warranty claim for the same siding, the same options will be available; and (3) the third time such a claim is submitted, such class member may elect to have the Company either refinish or replace the siding or may elect to receive a one-time $8,000 payment. If the $8,000 payment option is chosen, the Company will have no further obligation to such class member in connection with the warranty. Under the Settlement, the Company has agreed to pay the sum of $2.5 million to compensate class counsel for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses incurred and to be incurred in connection with the lawsuit. The Company also paid $0.6 million associated with executing the notice provisions of the Settlement. The Company expects to incur additional warranty costs associated with the Settlement, however, the Company does not believe the incremental costs, which currently cannot be estimated for recognition purposes, will be material. The Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability, culpability, negligence or wrongdoing on the Company’s part, and the Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims asserted. Upon final approval by the court, the Settlement will release all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company in the lawsuit or that relate to any aspect of the subject matter of the lawsuit. Other environmental claims and product liability claims are administered by the Company in the ordinary course of business, and the Company maintains pollution and remediation and product liability insurance covering certain types of claims. Although it is difficult to estimate the Company’s potential exposure to these matters, the Company believes that the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is involved from time to time in litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which, after giving effect to existing insurance coverage, is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity. From time to time, the Company is also involved in proceedings and potential proceedings relating to environmental and product liability matters.

Environmental Claims

The Woodbridge, New Jersey facility is currently the subject of an investigation and/or remediation before the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) under ISRA Case No. E20030110 for the Company’s indirect wholly owned subsidiary, Gentek Building Products, Inc. (“Gentek”). The facility is currently leased by Gentek. Previous operations at the facility resulted in soil and groundwater contamination in certain areas of the property. In 1999, the property owner and Gentek signed a remediation agreement with NJDEP, pursuant to which the property owner and Gentek agreed to continue an investigation/remediation that had been commenced pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement with NJDEP. Under the remediation agreement, NJDEP required posting of a remediation funding source of approximately $100,000 that was provided by Gentek under a self-guarantee as of December 31, 2011. In March 2012, the self-guarantee was replaced by a $228,000 standby letter of credit provided to the NJDEP. In May 2013, the amount of the standby letter of credit was increased to $339,500. Although investigations at this facility are ongoing and it appears probable that a liability will be incurred, the Company cannot currently estimate the amount of liability that may be associated with this facility as the delineation process has not been completed. The Company believes this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Product Liability Claims

On September 20, 2010, the Company and its subsidiary, Gentek Buildings Products, Inc. (“Gentek”), were named as defendants in an action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, captioned Donald Eliason, et al. v. Gentek Building Products, Inc., et al (the “Eliason complaint”). The complaint was filed by a number of individual plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class of owners of steel and aluminum siding products manufactured by the Company and Gentek or their predecessors. The plaintiffs assert a breach of express and implied warranty, along with related causes of action, claiming that an unspecified defect in the siding causes paint to peel off the metal and that the Company and Gentek have failed adequately to honor their warranty obligations to repair, replace or refinish the defective siding. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, restitution of monies paid to the defendants and an injunction against the claimed unlawful practices, together with attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. Since such time that the Eliason complaint was filed, seven additional putative class actions have been filed.

On September 6, 2012, the Court issued an order granting defendants’ request for consolidation of all cases under a single caption, proceeding on a single track. The Court also ordered plaintiffs to file their single consolidated amended complaint by September 19, 2012, which plaintiffs did.

On February 13, 2013, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the “Settlement”) with the named plaintiffs. The Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 5, 2013. On August 1, 2013 following a fairness hearing the Court issued a final judgment and order approving the Settlement (“Final Judgment and Order”). The Settlement will be effective on September 2, 2013 when the time period for appealing the Final Judgment and Order ends.

The Settlement provides for the certification of a class for settlement purposes only of commercial and residential property owners who purchased steel siding manufactured and warranted by the Company during the period January 1, 1991 to the date on which notice of the proposed Settlement is first sent to settlement class members and whose siding allegedly experienced “Steel Peel,” which is characterized for the purposes of settlement by the separation of any layer of the finish on the steel siding from the steel siding itself. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Settlement, the Company has agreed that (1) the first time an eligible settlement class member submits a valid Steel Peel warranty claim for siding, the Company will, at its option, repair or replace the siding or, at such class member’s option, make a cash settlement payment to such class member equal to the cost to the Company of the repair or replacement option selected by the Company; (2) the second time such class member submits a valid Steel Peel warranty claim for the same siding, the same options will be available; and (3) the third time such a claim is submitted, such class member may elect to have the Company either refinish or replace the siding or may elect to receive a one-time $8,000 payment. If the $8,000 payment option is chosen, the Company will have no further obligation to such class member in connection with the warranty.

Under the Settlement, the Company has agreed to pay the sum of $2.5 million to compensate class counsel for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses incurred and to be incurred in connection with the lawsuit. The Company also paid $0.6 million associated with executing the notice provisions of the Settlement. The Company expects to incur additional warranty costs associated with the Settlement, however, the Company does not believe the incremental costs, which currently cannot be estimated for recognition purposes, will be material.

The Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability, culpability, negligence or wrongdoing on the Company’s part, and the Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims asserted. Upon final approval by the court, the Settlement will release all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company in the lawsuit or that relate to any aspect of the subject matter of the lawsuit.

Other environmental claims and product liability claims are administered by the Company in the ordinary course of business, and the Company maintains pollution and remediation and product liability insurance covering certain types of claims. Although it is difficult to estimate the Company’s potential exposure to these matters, the Company believes that the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.