XML 76 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Loss Contingency Information About Litigation Matters [Abstract]  
Contingencies
(19)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 result in actual costs that are significantly higher than the Company’s current assessment and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results and cash flows in future reporting periods. While these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, based upon past experience, it is likely that payments significantly in excess of current reserves, if required, would be made over an extended number of years.

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 activities and along with other companies, have been named a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for certain waste disposal sites ("Superfund sites"). Substantially all of the liabilities currently recorded on the Company’s balance sheet for environmental proceedings are 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 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/or remediation of applicable sites. These reserves were $10,881 and $5,096 at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The increase in the reserve includes adjustments to reserves of $7,434 and the impact of currency translation of $21 partially offset by payments of $1,670. The reserves are adjusted periodically as remediation efforts progress or as additional technical, regulatory or legal information becomes 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. Given the uncertainties regarding the outcome of investigative and study activities, 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 continue implementing a sampling plan at the property 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. As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s reserve was $249.

Cosan

The Company is currently implementing a sampling and pilot program at its Cosan Clifton, New Jersey site pursuant to the NJDEP private oversight program. The results of the sampling and pilot program to date have been used to develop an estimate of the Company's future liability for remediation costs. As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s reserve was $1,259.

Additionally, the Company is currently implementing a sampling and pilot program at its Cosan Carlstadt, New Jersey site pursuant to the NJDEP private oversight program. The results of the sampling and pilot program to date have been used to develop an estimate of the Company's future liability for remediation costs. As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s reserve was $1,136.

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 Study Area 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 entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) and Order on Consent with the USEPA agreeing to jointly conduct or fund an appropriate remedial investigation and feasibility study of the Berry’s Creek site with the other PRPs in the Agreement. The PRPs have engaged consultants to perform the work specified in the Agreement and develop a method to allocate related costs among the PRPs. As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s reserve was $249 to cover the current 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 additional liabilities.
 
Maybrook Site

A subsidiary of Cambrex is named a PRP of a former production facility 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 this facility in 1986. The PRPs implemented soil remediation which was completed in 2012 pending approval by the USEPA. The PRPs will continue implementing the ground water remediation at the site. As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s reserve was $322 to cover remaining ground water remediation and long-term monitoring.

Harriman Site

Subsidiaries of Cambrex and Pfizer are named as responsible parties for the Company’s former Harriman, New York production facility by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”). A final ROD describing the Harriman site remediation responsibilities for Pfizer and the Company was issued in 1997 (the "1997 ROD") and incorporated into a federal court Consent Decree in 1998 (the “Consent Decree”). Site clean-up work under the 1997 ROD is on-going and is being jointly performed by Pfizer and the Company, with NYSDEC oversight. ELT Harriman, LLC ("ELT"), the current owner of the Harriman site, conducted other investigation and remediation activities under a separate NYSDEC directive.

In October 2013, the NYSDEC sent the Company, Pfizer, ELT and the immediately preceding owner Vertellus Specialties Holdings (“Vertellus”) an enforcement letter demanding that the Company and Pfizer submit a work plan for the further study and remediation of certain areas of the Harriman site, including the evaluation of certain remedies that the Company has contended are not required by the 1997 ROD. In December 2013, the Company, Pfizer and the NYSDEC entered into a federal court stipulation withdrawing the October 2013 enforcement letter as to the Company and Pfizer, and resolving certain disputes about the scope of their obligations under the Consent Decree and the 1997 ROD. Pursuant to the stipulation, the Company and Pfizer are required to carry out an environmental investigation and study of certain areas of the Harriman Site.

No final remedy for the site has been determined, which will follow further investigation and discussions with the NYSDEC. The Company estimated the range for its share of the liability at the site to be between $2,000 and $7,000. As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s reserve was $3,690, which reflects amounts for work which the Company currently considers to be probable and estimable. At this time, the Company is unable to provide an estimate of the ultimate investigative and remedial costs to the Company for any final remedy selected by NYSDEC.

The Company intends to enforce all of its contractual rights to recover costs and for indemnification, and has filed such claims in an arbitration proceeding against ELT and Vertellus. ELT has filed counterclaims for contractual indemnification. Currently, the arbitration proceeding is stayed indefinitely.
 
    Scientific Chemical Processing (“SCP”) Superfund Site

   A subsidiary of Cambrex 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 this subsidiary. The PRPs are in the process of implementing a final remedy 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 related to SCP’s involvement in the Berry’s Creek investigation, the PRP group approved the assessment of an additional cash contribution by the PRP group. While the Company continues to dispute the methodology used by the PRP group to arrive at its allocation for the cash contribution, the Company has paid the recent funding requests. A final allocation of SCP Site costs is expected to be developed during 2014. As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s reserve was $1,250 of which approximately $735 is expected to be covered by insurance.
 
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 has entered into a settlement agreement with the original plaintiffs, which has been approved by the Court. The settlement resolves the lawsuit and provides the Company with some protections from certain claims. The settlement resolves any claims that the original plaintiffs have against the Company and will require Maxus and Tierra to re-file their claims against the Company in federal court. As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s reserve is $324 for 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 APIs (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 total amount of $19,200, payable jointly and severally, and also a punitive damage award against each defendant in the amount of $16,709. In addition, at the time, the District Court ruled that the defendants were subject to a total of approximately $7,500 in prejudgment interest. The case is currently pending before the District Court following a January 2011 remand by the Court of Appeals where briefing related to whether the court has jurisdiction over certain self-funded customer plaintiffs has been completed and the parties are currently waiting for a ruling by the 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. Mylan has submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party insurance company in the amount of $66,632. 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.

Other

The Company has commitments incident to the ordinary course of business including corporate guarantees of certain subsidiary obligations to the Company’s lenders related to financial assurance obligations under certain environmental laws for remediation; closure and third party liability requirements of certain of its subsidiaries and a former operating location; contract provisions for indemnification protecting its customers and suppliers against third party liability for the manufacture and sale of Company products that fail to meet product warranties and contract provisions for indemnification protecting licensees against intellectual property infringement related to licensed Company technology or processes.

Additionally, as permitted under Delaware law, the Company indemnifies its officers, directors and employees for certain events or occurrences while the officer, director or employee is, or was, serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer's, director's or employee’s lifetime. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that covers a portion of any potential exposure. The Company currently believes the estimated fair value of its indemnification agreements is not material based on currently available information, and as such, the Company had no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of December 31, 2013.

Cambrex's subsidiaries are party to a number of other proceedings that are not considered material at this time.