(20)	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 known facts and circumstances as they pertain to applicable 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, the Company believes 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. The Company had insurance policies in place at certain of the discontinued operations for certain years that the Company believes should cover some portion of currently recorded liabilities or potential future liabilities.

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 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 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. It is not possible at this time for the Company to determine fully the effect of all asserted and unasserted claims on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity; however, to the extent possible, where asserted and unasserted claims can be estimated and where such claims are considered probable, the Company would record a liability. Consequently, the ultimate liability with respect to such matters, as well as the timing of cash disbursements, is uncertain.

In matters where the Company is able to reasonably estimate the probable and estimable costs associated with environmental proceedings, the Company accrues for the estimated costs associated with the study and remediation of applicable sites. These reserves were $9,595 and $10,881 at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The decrease in the reserve includes payments of $2,269 and the impact of currency translation of $226 partially offset by adjustments to reserves of $1,209. The reserves are adjusted periodically as remediation efforts progress or as additional technical, regulatory or legal information becomes available. 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 a 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, 2014, the Company’s reserve for the investigation of site conditions was $193.

Cosan

The Company has implemented a sampling and pilot program in Clifton, New Jersey 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, 2014, the Company’s reserve was $1,191.

Additionally, the Company has implemented a sampling and pilot program in Carlstadt, New Jersey 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, 2014, the Company’s reserve was $1,063.

Berry’s Creek

The Company received a notice from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) that two 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, 2014, the Company’s reserve was $388 to cover the current phase of investigation based on a tentative agreement on the allocation of the site investigation costs among the PRPs. Due to the very preliminary and uncertain nature of any estimates related to the method and costs of any remediation solution, the number of eventual PRPs, and their respective proportion of remediation costs, the Company’s liability cannot be reasonably estimated at this time; as such, no accrual is recorded for these potential future costs. The impact of the resolution of this matter on the Company’s results of operations in any future reporting period is not known.

In July 2014, the Company received a notice from the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, regarding the Company’s potential liability for natural resource damages at the Berry’s Creek site and inviting the Company to participate in a cooperative assessment of natural resource damages. All members of the Berry’s Creek PRP group are receiving such notice letters, and any response from the Company will be coordinated with the PRP Group. The substance of any response from the Company, the cost of any assessment, and the ultimate scope of natural resource damage liability are not yet known.

Maybrook Site

A subsidiary of Cambrex is named a PRP of a 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 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, 2014, 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 (“Record of Decision”) 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 ongoing and is being jointly performed by Pfizer and the Company, with NYSDEC oversight. ELT Harriman, LLC ("ELT"), the current owner of the Harriman site, is conducting 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, which the court subsequently endorsed as a court order, withdrawing the October 2013 enforcement letter as it relates 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 court order, 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 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, 2014, the Company’s reserve was $3,615. 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 the NYSDEC.

The Company intends to enforce all of its contractual rights to recover costs and for indemnification under a 2007 settlement agreement, and has filed such claims in an arbitration proceeding against ELT and Vertellus. ELT has filed counterclaims, and has threatened to file additional counterclaims, for contractual indemnification and for breach of the settlement agreement against the Company. 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, 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 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 in 2010 and 2014. The next funding request is expected in 2015. A final allocation of SCP Site costs is expected to be developed concurrent with the final allocation process for Berry’s Creek Study Area starting in 2015. As of December 31, 2014, the Company’s reserve was $1,039, of which approximately $737 is expected to be covered by insurance.

Newark Bay Complex

Two subsidiaries of the Company were named along with several hundred third-party defendants in a third-party complaint filed in February 2009, by Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”) and Tierra Solutions, Inc. (“Tierra”) relating to a N.J. state action concerning the Passaic River, Newark Bay, Hackensack River, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull and adjacent waters (the “Newark Bay Complex”). The Company settled this case which resolved certain New Jersey state based claims related to the Newark Bay Complex. The settlement will require Maxus and Tierra to re-file any further claims against the Company in federal court. In preparation for any such federal or similar claims, the Company is currently monitoring developments regarding the Newark Bay Complex. Due to the uncertainty of the future scope and timing of any such claims, the Company’s liability cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, and as such, no accrual is recorded for these potential future costs.

The Company is involved in other related and unrelated 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. In July 2014, the District Court dismissed certain customers for which the plaintiffs were unable to establish jurisdiction and consequently, the plaintiffs currently have a motion pending before the District Court to reduce the damages award by a total of $9,600.

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, 2014.

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