12. Contingencies

Asbestos Litigation

Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products that we previously manufactured. We produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics generally had a useful life of three to twelve months.

We were defending 4,446 claims as of October 26, 2011. This compares with 4,714 claims as of July 25, 2011, 4,799 claims as of April 18, 2011, 5,158 claims as of February 11, 2011, and 5,170 claims as of October 29, 2010. These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on alleged exposure to products that we previously manufactured.

The following table sets forth the number of claims filed, the number of claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved, and the aggregate settlement amount during the periods presented:


Year ended December 31,	Opening Number of Claims	Claims Dismissed, Settled, or Resolved	New Claims	Closing Number of Claims	Amounts Paid (thousands) to Settle or Resolve ($)
2005	29,411	6,257	1,297	24,451	504
2006	24,451	6,841	1,806	19,416	3,879
2007	19,416	808	190	18,798	15
2008	18,798	523	110	18,385	52
2009	18,385	9,482	42	8,945	88
2010	8,945	3,963	188	5,170	159
2011 to date	5,170	789	65	4,446	1,111

We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. These suits typically involve claims against from twenty to more than two hundred defendants, and many complaints fail to identify the plaintiffs' work history or the nature of the plaintiffs' alleged exposure to our products. Pleadings and discovery responses in cases in which work histories have been provided indicate claimants with paper mill exposure in approximately 15% of the total claims filed against the Company to date, and only a portion of those claimants have alleged time spent in a paper mill to which we are believed to have supplied asbestos-containing products.

The significant increase in the number of dismissed claims during 2009 and early 2010 was in large part the result of changes in the administration of claims assigned to the multidistrict litigation panel of the federal district courts (the "MDL"). As of October 26, 2011, 453 claims remained against the Company in the MDL. This compares to 12,758 claims that were pending at the MDL as of February 6, 2009.

With respect to claims remaining at the MDL, future discovery may yield more relevant information regarding work histories and the basis, if any, for a plaintiff's claim against the Company. The Company does not currently believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to the claims remaining at the MDL, although this conclusion could change as the MDL's efforts to advance resolution of these claims progresses.

As of October 26, 2011, the remaining 3,993 claims pending against the Company were pending in a number of jurisdictions other than the MDL. Pleadings and discovery responses in those cases in which work histories have been provided indicate claimants with paper mill exposure in approximately 25% of claims reported, and only a portion of those claimants have alleged time spent in a paper mill to which we are believed to have supplied asbestos-containing products. For these reasons, we expect the percentage of these remaining claimants able to demonstrate time spent in a paper mill to which we supplied asbestos-containing products during a period in which our asbestos-containing products were in use to be considerably lower than the total number of pending claims. Detailed exposure and disease information sufficient meaningfully to estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, and often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to these remaining claims.

It is our position, and the position of other paper machine clothing defendants, that there was insufficient exposure to asbestos from any paper machine clothing products to cause asbestos-related injury to any plaintiff. Furthermore, asbestos contained in our synthetic products was encapsulated in a resin-coated yarn woven into the interior of the fabric, further reducing the likelihood of fiber release. While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain of these cases for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of October 26, 2011, we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 36,280 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $8.116 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The Company has approximately $130 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that we should be able to access.

Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,877 claims as of October 26, 2011. This was the same as of July 25, 2011, and compares with 7,876 claims as of April 18, 2011, 7,868 claims as of February 11, 2011, and 7,869 claims as of October 29, 2010.

The following table sets forth the number of claims filed, the number of claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved, and the aggregate settlement amount during the periods presented:

Year ended December 31,	Opening Number of Claims	Claims Dismissed, Settled, or Resolved	New Claims	Closing Number of Claims	Amounts Paid (thousands) to Settle or Resolve ($)
2005	9,985	642	223	9,566	0
2006	9,566	1,182	730	9,114	0
2007	9,114	462	88	8,740	0
2008	8,740	86	10	8,664	0
2009	8,664	760	3	7,907	0
2010	7,907	47	9	7,869	0
2011 to date	7,869	3	11	7,877	0

We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-containing fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction. Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Under the terms of the Assets Purchase Agreement between Brandon and Abney, Abney agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold Brandon harmless from any actions or claims on account of products manufactured by Abney and its related corporations prior to the date of the sale, whether or not the product was sold subsequent to the date of the sale. It appears that Abney has since been dissolved. Nevertheless, a representative of Abney has been notified of the pendency of these actions and demand has been made that it assume the defense of these actions. Because Brandon did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it does not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the claims that have been asserted against it. In some instances, plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed claims against it, while in others it has entered into what it considers to be reasonable settlements. As of October 26, 2011, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 9,721 claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these proceedings.

For the same reasons set forth above with respect to Albany's claims, as well as the fact that no amounts have been paid to resolve any Brandon claims since 2001, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to these remaining claims.

Mount Vernon. In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions.

Although we do not believe, based on currently available information and for the reasons stated above, that a meaningful estimate of a range of possible loss can be made with respect to such claims, based on our understanding of the insurance policies available, how settlement amounts have been allocated to various policies, our settlement experience, the absence of any judgments against the Company or Brandon, the ratio of paper mill claims to total claims filed, and the defenses available, we currently do not anticipate any material liability relating to the resolution of the aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing insurance limits. Consequently, we currently do not anticipate, based on currently available information, that the ultimate resolution of the aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company. Although we cannot predict the number and timing of future claims, based on the foregoing factors and the trends in claims against us to date, we do not anticipate that additional claims likely to be filed against us in the future will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We are aware that litigation is inherently uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent primarily on determinations of factual matters to be made by juries.

NAFTA Audits

The Company's affiliate in Mexico was notified in November 2010 that Mexican customs authorities expected to issue demands for duties on certain imports of PMC from the Company and the Company's affiliate in Canada for which the Company has claimed duty-free treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA").

The notices result from a decision by the Mexican Servicio de Administración Tributaria ("SAT") to invalidate NAFTA certificates provided by the Company on products shipped to its Mexican affiliate during the years 2006 through 2008. The Demand Notices arose from an SAT audit during 2010, at the conclusion of which the SAT determined that the Company had failed to provide documentation sufficient to show that the certificates were validly issued, and declared the certificates issued during this period to be invalid. The Company believes that the certificates of origin were valid and properly issued and has commenced administrative appeals with SAT disputing its resolutions.

The import duties identified in such notices to date are approximately US $2.5 million, and relate to only a portion of the shipments covered by the invalidated certificates.

In the event of an adverse ruling at the conclusion of the administrative appeal process, the Company would have an opportunity to appeal the outcome in Mexican Tax Court, during which it would have an opportunity to present evidence to establish that the shipments in question were of U.S. and Canadian origin and entitled to the benefits of NAFTA. As all of the shipments covered by the invalidated certificates were, in fact, of U.S. or Canadian origin, the Company expects that it will be able to demonstrate that the certificates were validly issued. The Company has been advised by counsel that, if this is the case, then the Tax Court is likely to revoke the SAT invalidation actions and rule in favor of the Company.

In the unlikely event that the Company were not to prevail, however, then it could become subject to additional demand notices for the balance of the shipments during the period from 2006 through 2008 covered by the invalidated certificates. If such demand notices were to be issued for all the shipments so covered, then the Company could be liable for duties aggregating between US $8.0 and $10.0 million. The Company has also been advised by counsel that SAT would likely seek additional antidumping duties and penalties which could increase these amounts by up to 900%, but that the possibility that SAT would succeed in obtaining such additional duties and penalties is remote. The Company also does not believe that it faces any material risk of certificates being invalidated with respect to any period other than the 2006 through 2008 audit period. For this reason, the Company does not feel that this matter is likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows.