Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	(13) Contingencies The Company is subject to various investigations, claims and legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. The Company continually assesses all known facts and circumstances as they pertain to all legal and environmental matters and evaluates the need for reserves and disclosures as deemed necessary based on these facts and circumstances. These matters, either individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, operating results and cash flows in a future reporting period. Environmental In connection with laws and regulations pertaining to the protection of the environment, the Company and its subsidiaries are a party to several environmental proceedings and remediation investigations and cleanups and, along with other companies, have been named a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for certain waste disposal sites (“Superfund sites”). Additionally, the Company has retained the liability for certain environmental proceedings associated with discontinued operations. It is the Company's policy to record appropriate liabilities for environmental matters where remedial efforts are probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. Such liabilities are based on the Company's best estimate of the undiscounted future costs required to complete the remedial work. Each of these matters is subject to various uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters will be decided unfavorably against the Company. The resolution of such matters often spans several or more years and frequently involves regulatory oversight or adjudication. Additionally, many remediation requirements are fluid and are likely to be affected by future technological, site, and regulatory developments. Consequently, the ultimate liability with respect to such matters, as well as the timing of cash disbursements cannot be determined with certainty. In matters where the Company has been able to reasonably estimate its liability, the Company has accrued for the estimated costs associated with the study and remediation of applicable sites not owned by the Company and the Company's current and former operating sites. These reserves were $7,064 and $7,017 at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. The increase in the reserve includes the impact of currency translation of $96 and adjustments to reserves of $79 partially offset by payments of $128. The reserves are adjusted periodically as remediation efforts progress or as additional technical, regulatory or legal information become available. Based upon available information and analysis, the Company's current reserve represents management's best estimate of the probable and estimable costs associated with environmental proceedings including amounts for investigation fees where full remediation costs may not be estimable at the reporting date. Given the uncertainties regarding the status of laws, regulations, enforcement, policies, the impact of other PRPs, technology and information related to individual sites, the Company does not believe it is possible to currently develop an estimate of the range of reasonably possible environmental loss in excess of its reserves. CasChem As a result of the sale of the Bayonne, New Jersey facility, the Company became obligated to investigate site conditions and conduct required remediation under the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act. The Company intends to implement a sampling plan at the property in 2012 pursuant to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's (“NJDEP”) private oversight program. The results of the completed sampling, and any additional sampling deemed necessary, will be used to develop an estimate of the Company's future liability for remediation costs, if any. Cosan In response to the NJDEP, the Company completed its initial investigation and submitted the results of the investigation and a proposed remediation plan to the NJDEP for its Cosan Clifton, New Jersey site. The NJDEP subsequently rejected the remediation plan and requested additional investigative work at the site and that work is on-going. The reserve was $1,032 at June 30, 2011 which was based on the initial remedial action plan. The results of the additional investigative work may impact the remediation plan and costs. Additionally, the Company has a reserve of $895 for the Cosan Carlstadt, New Jersey site based on the investigations completed to date and the proposed remediation plan submitted to the NJDEP for its approval. The NJDEP has subsequently required the Company to perform additional investigative work prior to approval of the remediation plan. The results of this additional investigative work may impact the remediation plan and costs. The NJDEP has advised the Company that the site will be placed in the NJDEP's private oversight program. Under the program the Company will be required to implement a remediation plan in 2012. Berry's Creek The Company received a notice from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) that two former subsidiaries of the Company are considered PRPs at the Berry's Creek Superfund Site in New Jersey. These subsidiaries are among many other PRPs that were listed in the notice. Pursuant to the notice, the PRPs have been asked to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study of the Berry's Creek Site. The Company has joined the group of PRPs and filed a response to the USEPA agreeing to jointly conduct or fund an appropriate remedial investigation and feasibility study of the Berry's Creek Site. The PRPs have engaged consultants to evaluate investigation and remedial alternatives and develop a method to allocate related costs among the PRPs. As of June 30, 2011, the Company's reserve was $111 to cover the initial phase of investigation based on a tentative agreement on the allocation of the site investigation costs among the PRPs. The investigation is ongoing and at this time it is too early to predict the extent of any additional liabilities. Maybrook and Harriman Sites The Company's Nepera, Inc. subsidiary (“Nepera”) is named a PRP of the Maybrook Site in Hamptonburgh, New York by the USEPA in connection with the discharge, under appropriate permits, of wastewater at that site prior to Cambrex's acquisition of Nepera in 1986. The USEPA also issued the Company a Notice of Potential Liability and the Company signed a consent decree to complete the Record of Decision (“ROD”) and has provided the USEPA with appropriate financial assurance to guarantee the obligation under the consent decree. The PRPs intend to begin to implement remedial action at this site in the third quarter of 2011. Nepera is also named a responsible party of its former Harriman, New York production facility by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”). A final ROD was issued which describes the remediation plan for the site. Implementation of the ROD is on-going. In December 2010 the NYSDEC notified Cambrex, Pfizer, and the current owners of the property that they intended to combine the investigation and remediation being conducted by various parties pursuant to different regulatory programs under one regulatory umbrella. This development could potentially lead to increased liabilities for the Company. There are on-going discussions between the NYSDEC and all parties to try to resolve this matter. As of June 30, 2011, the reserve recorded by the Company for Nepera was $2,050 and represents the Company's best estimate to complete both RODs. Scientific Chemical Processing (“SCP”) Superfund Site Nepera was named a PRP of the SCP Superfund site, located in Carlstadt, New Jersey, in the early 1980's along with approximately 130 other PRPs. The site is a former waste processing facility that accepted various waste for recovery and disposal including processing wastewater from Nepera. The PRPs are in the process of implementing a final remedy for soil and groundwater contamination at the site. The SCP Superfund site has also been identified as a PRP in the Berry's Creek Superfund site (see previous discussion). For over a decade, the remediation has been funded by de minimus settlements and by the insurers of the SCP Superfund site's owners and operators. However, due to an unexpected increase in remediation costs at the site and costs to contribute to the Berry's Creek investigation, the PRP group has recently approved the assessment of an additional cash contribution by the PRP group. While the Company disputes the methodology used by the PRP group to arrive at its allocation for the cash contribution, the Company has paid the initial funding request and has established a reserve for the remaining allocation in the amount of $261. Solvent Recoveries Superfund Site A subsidiary of the Company is one of approximately 1,300 PRPs at a Superfund site in Southington, Connecticut, once operated by Solvent Recoveries, Inc. The PRP group has completed a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study and the USEPA has proposed remediation of the site. In 2008, the Company agreed to enter into a consent decree and settlement with the other PRPs and the USEPA whereby the Company agreed to pay a settlement amount of $353 with an initial payment of $106 and the remaining $247 to be paid in installments over time as the remediation proceeds. The Company has reserved for the unpaid portion of the settlement and has issued a letter of credit to guarantee the payment obligation under the settlement. Newark Bay Complex Litigation CasChem and Cosan have been named as two of several hundred third-party defendants in a third-party complaint filed in February 2009, by Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”) and Tierra Solutions, Inc. (“Tierra”). The original plaintiffs include the NJDEP, the Commissioner of the NJDEP and the Administrator of the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund, which originally filed suit in 2005 against Maxus, Tierra and other defendants seeking recovery of cleanup and removal costs for alleged discharges of dioxin and other hazardous substances into the Passaic River, Newark Bay, Hackensack River, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull and adjacent waters (the “Newark Bay Complex”). Maxus and Tierra are now seeking contributions from third-party defendants, including subsidiaries of the Company, for cleanup and removal costs for which each may be held liable in the primary lawsuit. Maxus and Tierra also seek recovery for cleanup and removal costs that each has incurred or will incur relating to the Newark Bay Complex. The Company expects to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. At this time it is too early to predict whether the Company will have any liability in this matter. The Company is involved in other environmental matters where the range of liability is not reasonably estimable at this time and it is not foreseeable when information will become available to provide a basis for adjusting or recording a reserve, should a reserve ultimately be required. Litigation and Other Matters Lorazepam and Clorazepate In 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. (“Mylan”) and Gyma Laboratories, Inc. (“Gyma”) in a proceeding instituted by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the “District Court”). Suits were also commenced by several State Attorneys' General and class action complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts. The suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and Mylan covering two active pharmaceutical ingredients (Lorazepam and Clorazepate). All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health care insurers. In the remaining case the District Court entered judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in the amount of $8,355, payable jointly and severally, and also a punitive damage award against each defendant in the amount of $16,709. In addition, the District Court ruled that the defendants were subject to a total of approximately $7,000 in prejudgment interest. In January 2011, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court to determine which parties were properly before the court and to what extent the removal of certain parties from the case that do not meet jurisdictional requirements may affect damages. The Court of Appeals further declined to issue an opinion with respect to the merits of Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex's objections to the jury's damage award until such time as the jurisdiction issue is resolved by the district court. In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415 to Mylan in exchange for a release and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in related litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and Clorazepate, as well as potential future claims related to the ongoing matter. In the event of a final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex expects any payment required by the Company to be made by Mylan under the indemnity described above.

(13) Contingencies

The Company is subject to various investigations, claims and legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. The Company continually assesses all known facts and circumstances as they pertain to all legal and environmental matters and evaluates the need for reserves and disclosures as deemed necessary based on these facts and circumstances. These matters, either individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, operating results and cash flows in a future reporting period.

Environmental

In connection with laws and regulations pertaining to the protection of the environment, the Company and its subsidiaries are a party to several environmental proceedings and remediation investigations and cleanups and, along with other companies, have been named a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for certain waste disposal sites (“Superfund sites”). Additionally, the Company has retained the liability for certain environmental proceedings associated with discontinued operations.

It is the Company's policy to record appropriate liabilities for environmental matters where remedial efforts are probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. Such liabilities are based on the Company's best estimate of the undiscounted future costs required to complete the remedial work. Each of these matters is subject to various uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters will be decided unfavorably against the Company. The resolution of such matters often spans several or more years and frequently involves regulatory oversight or adjudication. Additionally, many remediation requirements are fluid and are likely to be affected by future technological, site, and regulatory developments. Consequently, the ultimate liability with respect to such matters, as well as the timing of cash disbursements cannot be determined with certainty.

In matters where the Company has been able to reasonably estimate its liability, the Company has accrued for the estimated costs associated with the study and remediation of applicable sites not owned by the Company and the Company's current and former operating sites. These reserves were $7,064 and $7,017 at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. The increase in the reserve includes the impact of currency translation of $96 and adjustments to reserves of $79 partially offset by payments of $128. The reserves are adjusted periodically as remediation efforts progress or as additional technical, regulatory or legal information become available. Based upon available information and analysis, the Company's current reserve represents management's best estimate of the probable and estimable costs associated with environmental proceedings including amounts for investigation fees where full remediation costs may not be estimable at the reporting date. Given the uncertainties regarding the status of laws, regulations, enforcement, policies, the impact of other PRPs, technology and information related to individual sites, the Company does not believe it is possible to currently develop an estimate of the range of reasonably possible environmental loss in excess of its reserves.

CasChem

As a result of the sale of the Bayonne, New Jersey facility, the Company became obligated to investigate site conditions and conduct required remediation under the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act. The Company intends to implement a sampling plan at the property in 2012 pursuant to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's (“NJDEP”) private oversight program. The results of the completed sampling, and any additional sampling deemed necessary, will be used to develop an estimate of the Company's future liability for remediation costs, if any.

Cosan

In response to the NJDEP, the Company completed its initial investigation and submitted the results of the investigation and a proposed remediation plan to the NJDEP for its Cosan Clifton, New Jersey site. The NJDEP subsequently rejected the remediation plan and requested additional investigative work at the site and that work is on-going. The reserve was $1,032 at June 30, 2011 which was based on the initial remedial action plan. The results of the additional investigative work may impact the remediation plan and costs.

Additionally, the Company has a reserve of $895 for the Cosan Carlstadt, New Jersey site based on the investigations completed to date and the proposed remediation plan submitted to the NJDEP for its approval. The NJDEP has subsequently required the Company to perform additional investigative work prior to approval of the remediation plan. The results of this additional investigative work may impact the remediation plan and costs. The NJDEP has advised the Company that the site will be placed in the NJDEP's private oversight program. Under the program the Company will be required to implement a remediation plan in 2012.

Berry's Creek

The Company received a notice from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) that two former subsidiaries of the Company are considered PRPs at the Berry's Creek Superfund Site in New Jersey. These subsidiaries are among many other PRPs that were listed in the notice. Pursuant to the notice, the PRPs have been asked to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study of the Berry's Creek Site. The Company has joined the group of PRPs and filed a response to the USEPA agreeing to jointly conduct or fund an appropriate remedial investigation and feasibility study of the Berry's Creek Site. The PRPs have engaged consultants to evaluate investigation and remedial alternatives and develop a method to allocate related costs among the PRPs. As of June 30, 2011, the Company's reserve was $111 to cover the initial phase of investigation based on a tentative agreement on the allocation of the site investigation costs among the PRPs. The investigation is ongoing and at this time it is too early to predict the extent of any additional liabilities.

Maybrook and Harriman Sites

The Company's Nepera, Inc. subsidiary (“Nepera”) is named a PRP of the Maybrook Site in Hamptonburgh, New York by the USEPA in connection with the discharge, under appropriate permits, of wastewater at that site prior to Cambrex's acquisition of Nepera in 1986. The USEPA also issued the Company a Notice of Potential Liability and the Company signed a consent decree to complete the Record of Decision (“ROD”) and has provided the USEPA with appropriate financial assurance to guarantee the obligation under the consent decree. The PRPs intend to begin to implement remedial action at this site in the third quarter of 2011.

Nepera is also named a responsible party of its former Harriman, New York production facility by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”). A final ROD was issued which describes the remediation plan for the site. Implementation of the ROD is on-going. In December 2010 the NYSDEC notified Cambrex, Pfizer, and the current owners of the property that they intended to combine the investigation and remediation being conducted by various parties pursuant to different regulatory programs under one regulatory umbrella. This development could potentially lead to increased liabilities for the Company. There are on-going discussions between the NYSDEC and all parties to try to resolve this matter.

As of June 30, 2011, the reserve recorded by the Company for Nepera was $2,050 and represents the Company's best estimate to complete both RODs.

Scientific Chemical Processing (“SCP”) Superfund Site

Nepera was named a PRP of the SCP Superfund site, located in Carlstadt, New Jersey, in the early 1980's along with approximately 130 other PRPs. The site is a former waste processing facility that accepted various waste for recovery and disposal including processing wastewater from Nepera. The PRPs are in the process of implementing a final remedy for soil and groundwater contamination at the site. The SCP Superfund site has also been identified as a PRP in the Berry's Creek Superfund site (see previous discussion). For over a decade, the remediation has been funded by de minimus settlements and by the insurers of the SCP Superfund site's owners and operators. However, due to an unexpected increase in remediation costs at the site and costs to contribute to the Berry's Creek investigation, the PRP group has recently approved the assessment of an additional cash contribution by the PRP group. While the Company disputes the methodology used by the PRP group to arrive at its allocation for the cash contribution, the Company has paid the initial funding request and has established a reserve for the remaining allocation in the amount of $261.

Solvent Recoveries Superfund Site

A subsidiary of the Company is one of approximately 1,300 PRPs at a Superfund site in Southington, Connecticut, once operated by Solvent Recoveries, Inc. The PRP group has completed a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study and the USEPA has proposed remediation of the site. In 2008, the Company agreed to enter into a consent decree and settlement with the other PRPs and the USEPA whereby the Company agreed to pay a settlement amount of $353 with an initial payment of $106 and the remaining $247 to be paid in installments over time as the remediation proceeds. The Company has reserved for the unpaid portion of the settlement and has issued a letter of credit to guarantee the payment obligation under the settlement.

Newark Bay Complex Litigation

CasChem and Cosan have been named as two of several hundred third-party defendants in a third-party complaint filed in February 2009, by Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”) and Tierra Solutions, Inc. (“Tierra”). The original plaintiffs include the NJDEP, the Commissioner of the NJDEP and the Administrator of the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund, which originally filed suit in 2005 against Maxus, Tierra and other defendants seeking recovery of cleanup and removal costs for alleged discharges of dioxin and other hazardous substances into the Passaic River, Newark Bay, Hackensack River, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull and adjacent waters (the “Newark Bay Complex”). Maxus and Tierra are now seeking contributions from third-party defendants, including subsidiaries of the Company, for cleanup and removal costs for which each may be held liable in the primary lawsuit. Maxus and Tierra also seek recovery for cleanup and removal costs that each has incurred or will incur relating to the Newark Bay Complex. The Company expects to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. At this time it is too early to predict whether the Company will have any liability in this matter.

The Company is involved in other environmental matters where the range of liability is not reasonably estimable at this time and it is not foreseeable when information will become available to provide a basis for adjusting or recording a reserve, should a reserve ultimately be required.

Litigation and Other Matters

Lorazepam and Clorazepate

In 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. (“Mylan”) and Gyma Laboratories, Inc. (“Gyma”) in a proceeding instituted by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the “District Court”). Suits were also commenced by several State Attorneys' General and class action complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts. The suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and Mylan covering two active pharmaceutical ingredients (Lorazepam and Clorazepate).

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health care insurers. In the remaining case the District Court entered judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in the amount of $8,355, payable jointly and severally, and also a punitive damage award against each defendant in the amount of $16,709. In addition, the District Court ruled that the defendants were subject to a total of approximately $7,000 in prejudgment interest. In January 2011, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court to determine which parties were properly before the court and to what extent the removal of certain parties from the case that do not meet jurisdictional requirements may affect damages. The Court of Appeals further declined to issue an opinion with respect to the merits of Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex's objections to the jury's damage award until such time as the jurisdiction issue is resolved by the district court.

In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415 to Mylan in exchange for a release and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in related litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and Clorazepate, as well as potential future claims related to the ongoing matter. In the event of a final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex expects any payment required by the Company to be made by Mylan under the indemnity described above.