Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 22 – Commitments and Contingencies

In April of 1992, the Company identified certain soil and groundwater contamination at AC Products, Inc. (“ACP”), a wholly owned subsidiary. In voluntary coordination with the Santa Ana California Regional Water Quality Board (“SACRWQB”), ACP has been remediating the contamination, the principal contaminant of which is perchloroethylene (“PERC”). On or about December 18, 2004, the Orange County Water District (“OCWD”) filed a civil complaint in Superior Court in Orange County, California against ACP and other parties potentially responsible for groundwater contamination. OCWD was seeking to recover compensatory and other damages related to the investigation and remediation of the contamination in the groundwater. Effective October 17, 2007, ACP and OCWD settled all claims related to this litigation. Pursuant to the settlement agreement with OCWD, ACP agreed to pay $2,000. In addition to the $2,000 payment, ACP agreed to operate the two existing groundwater treatment systems associated with its extraction wells P-2 and P-3 so as to hydraulically contain groundwater contamination emanating from ACP's site until such time as the concentrations of PERC are below the current Federal maximum contaminant level for four consecutive quarterly sampling events. On September 11, 2012, ACP received a letter from the SACRWQB advising that no further action is required to remediate the soil contamination on site. As of December 31,2013, the Company believes that the range of potential-known liabilities associated with the ACP water remediation program is approximately $395 to $800, for which the Company has sufficient reserves.

The low and high ends of the range are based on the length of operation of an offsite extraction well as determined by groundwater modeling with planned higher maintenance costs in later years if a longer treatment period is required. Costs of operation include the operation and maintenance of the extraction well, groundwater monitoring and program management. The duration of the well operation was estimated based on historical trends in concentrations in the monitoring well within the proximity of the applicable extraction well. Also factored into the model was the impact of water injected into the underground aquifer from a planned water treatment system to be installed by OCWD adjacent to P-2. Based on the modeling, it is estimated that P-2 will operate for another nine months to two years.The Company is in the process of closing P-3. Operation and maintenance costs were based on historical expenditures and estimated inflation. As mentioned above, a significantly higher maintenance expense was factored into the range if the system operates for the longer period.

The Company believes, although there can be no assurance regarding the outcome of other unrelated environmental matters, that it has made adequate accruals for costs associated with other environmental problems of which it is aware. Approximately $205 and $230 was accrued at December 31,2013 and December 31,2012, respectively, to provide for such anticipated future environmental assessments and remediation costs.

An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance settlements received. To date, the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is approximately $2,700 (excluding costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 and early 2007 for $15,000 and $20,000, respectively. The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos litigation. During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay 27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. The agreement continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either party by providing the other party with a minimum of two years prior written notice. As of December 31, 2013, no notice of termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. The Company also believes that, if the coverage issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to the subsidiary.

If the subsidiary's assets and insurance coverage were to be exhausted, claimants of the subsidiary may actively pursue claims against the Company because of the parent-subsidiary relationship. Although asbestos litigation is particularly difficult to predict, especially with respect to claims that are currently not being actively pursued against the Company, the Company does not believe that such claims would have merit or that the Company would be held to have liability for any unsatisfied obligations of the subsidiary as a result of such claims. After evaluating the nature of the claims filed against the subsidiary and the small number of such claims that have resulted in any payment, the potential availability of additional insurance coverage at the subsidiary level, the additional availability of the Company's own insurance and the Company's strong defenses to claims that it should be held responsible for the subsidiary's obligations because of the parent-subsidiary relationship, the Company believes it is not probable that the Company will incur any material losses. The Company has been successful to date having claims naming it dismissed during initial proceedings. Since the Company may be in this early stage of litigation for some time, it is not possible to estimate additional losses or range of loss, if any.

As initially disclosed in the Company's second quarter 2010 Form 10-Q, one of the Company's subsidiaries may have paid certain value-added-taxes (“VAT”) incorrectly and, in certain cases, may not have collected sufficient VAT from certain customers. The VAT rules and regulations at issue are complex, vary among the jurisdictions and can be contradictory, in particular as to how they relate to the subsidiary's products and to sales between jurisdictions.

Since its inception, the subsidiary had been consistent in its VAT collection and remittance practices and had never been contacted by any tax authority relative to VAT. The subsidiary later determined that for certain products, a portion of the VAT was incorrectly paid and that the total VAT due exceeds the amount originally collected and remitted by the subsidiary. In response, the subsidiary modified its VAT invoicing and payment procedures to eliminate or mitigate future exposure. In 2010, three jurisdictions contacted the subsidiary and, since then, the subsidiary has either participated in an amnesty program or entered into a settlement whereby it paid a reduced portion of the amounts owed in resolution of those jurisdictions' claims. In late 2013, an additional jurisdiction issued an assessment against the subsidiary for certain tax years. The subsidiary has filed an appeal of the assessment alleging certain errors by such jurisdiction related to the assessment.

In analyzing the subsidiary's exposure, it is difficult to estimate both the probability and the amount of any potential liabilities due to a number of factors, including: the decrease in exposure over time due to applicable statutes of limitations and actions taken by the subsidiary, the joint liability of customers and suppliers for a portion of the VAT, the availability of a VAT refund for VAT incorrectly paid through an administrative process, any amounts which may have been or will be paid by customers, as well as the timing and structure of any tax amnesties or settlements. In addition, interest and penalties on any VAT due can be a multiple of the base tax. The subsidiary may contest any tax assessment administratively and/or judicially for an extended period of time, but may ultimately resolve its disputes through participation in tax amnesty programs, which are a common practice for settling tax disputes in the jurisdictions in question and which have historically occurred on a regular basis, resulting in significant reductions of interest and penalties. Also, the timing of payments and refunds of VAT may not be contemporaneous, and, if additional VAT is owed, it may not be fully recoverable from customers. As a result, this matter has the potential to have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position, liquidity and capital resources and the results of operations.

In 2010, the Company recorded a net charge of $4,132, which consisted of a net $3,901 charge related to two tax dispute settlements entered into by the subsidiary, as well as a net $231 charge representing management's best estimate based on the information available to it, including the factors noted above, of the amount that ultimately may be paid related to the other jurisdiction that has made inquiries. At December 31,2013 and December 31,2012, the Company had no remaining accrual, related to the 2010 charges, for payments to be made under the tax dispute settlements entered into by the subsidiary, noted above. In the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a net charge of $796, representing the Company's best estimate of the amount that ultimately may be paid related to the 2013 assessment referenced above.

The charges taken by the Company in 2010 and in the fourth quarter of 2013 assume a successful recovery of the VAT incorrectly paid, as well as reductions in interest and penalties from anticipated future amnesty programs or settlements. On a similar basis, if all other potentially impacted jurisdictions were to initiate audits and issue assessments, the remaining exposure, net of refunds, could be from $0 to $7,200 with one jurisdiction representing approximately 78 percent of this additional exposure, assuming the continued availability of future amnesty programs or settlements to reduce the interest and penalties. If there are future assessments but no such future amnesty programs or settlements, the potential exposure could be higher.

The Company is party to other litigation which management currently believes will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

The Company leases certain manufacturing and office facilities and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases with various terms from 1 to 5 years expiring in 2018. Rent expense for 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $5,510, $5,189, and $5,282, respectively.

The Company's minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases at December 31,2013 for future years were approximately:

2014	$	4,991
2015	$	4,154
2016	$	3,507
2017	$	1,812
2018	$	5
2019 and beyond	$	0