Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Product Warranty Costs and Service Returns / Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is involved from time to time in litigation arising in the ordinary course of its business, none of which, after giving effect to its existing insurance coverage, is expected to have a material adverse effect on its 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.

Product Liability Claims

On September 20, 2010, Associated Materials, LLC and its subsidiary, Gentek Buildings Products, Inc., 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 Associated Materials 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 Associated Materials 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 January 26, 2012, the Company filed a motion to coordinate or consolidate the actions as a multidistrict litigation. Plaintiffs in all cases agreed to a temporary stay while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered the motion. On April 17, 2012, the Panel issued an order denying the Company’s motion to consolidate on the basis that since all Plaintiffs’ have agreed to voluntarily dismiss their actions and re-file their cases in the Northern District of Ohio, there is no need to formally order the consolidation. The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend the cases.

The Company cannot currently estimate the amount of liability that may be associated with these matters and whether a liability is probable and accordingly, has not recorded a liability for these lawsuits. In addition, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to these matters.