)

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. 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.

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 the recorded liabilities or potential future liabilities and the Company expects the net cash impact related to the contingencies described below to be reduced by the applicable income tax rate.

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 $8,597 and $8,329 at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The increase in the reserves includes adjustments to reserves of $1,305, partially offset by payments of $1,037. 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.

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. New remedial requirements were identified during the current year which resulted in a $200 increase to the reserve. As of June 30, 2016, the Company’s reserve was $542.

The Company has implemented a sampling and pilot program in Clifton and 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. An update to the cost estimate for the Carlstadt site resulted in an increase of $35 in the current year. As of June 30, 2016, the Company’s reserve was $2,068.

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 (“RI”) and feasibility study (“FS”) 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.

In June 2016, the PRPs received a request from USEPA to amend the RI/FS Work Plan to accommodate a phased, iterative approach to the Berry’s Creek remediation. USEPA will be seeking an initial interim remedy that will focus on a portion of the site, namely, sediments in Upper and Middle Berry’s Creek and the marsh in Upper Peach Island Creek. Any subsequent remedial action will occur after the implementation and performance monitoring of this interim remedy and the extent of future action is expected to be at least partially determined by the outcome of this initial phase. Although the scope of remedial activities in the initial interim remedy is not currently known and no range of potential costs has been determined, based on the Company’s limited understanding of the remediation activities that would potentially be required for the initial phase, the Company believes that a remediation of this nature could cost as much as several hundred million dollars. The Company’s share has been preliminarily estimated by the PRP group at 2.3%; while the Company will defend its position that its share should be reduced from the current level, its share could be increased or decreased depending on the outcome of the final allocation process that will take place in future periods.

The estimated costs for the initial interim remedy are expected to be known within the next several quarters. At this time, the Company’s liability cannot be reasonably estimated and as such, no accrual is recorded for these potential future costs. While any resolution of this matter is not expected to materially impact the Company’s operations or financial position, it could be material to the financial statements in the period recorded. In the current year, the Company reserved $213 based on new 2016 cash flow estimates. As of June 30, 2016, the Company’s reserve was $130 to cover the current phase of investigation based on a tentative agreement on the allocation of the site investigation costs among the PRPs.

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. Most members of the Berry’s Creek PRP group received such notice letters, and the PRP Group coordinated a joint response, which was to decline participation in a cooperative assessment at this time, given existing investigation work at the site. The cost of any future assessment and the ultimate scope of natural resource damage liability are not yet known.

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. In the current quarter, the Company reserved $370 for additional USEPA oversight expenses. As of June 30, 2016, the Company’s reserve was $692 to cover long-term ground water monitoring and related costs.

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 Record of Decision (“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”). In December 2013, the Company, Pfizer and the NYSDEC entered into a federal court stipulation, which the court subsequently endorsed as a court order, resolving certain disputes with the NYSDEC about the scope of the obligations under the Consent Decree and the 1997 ROD, and requiring the Company and Pfizer to carry out an environmental investigation and study of certain areas of the Harriman Site.

Site clean-up work under the 1997 ROD, the Consent Decree and the 2013 stipulation is ongoing and is being jointly performed by Pfizer and the Company, with NYSDEC oversight. In 2014, Pfizer and the Company performed supplemental remedial investigation measures agreed to by the NYSDEC, and the findings were submitted to NYSDEC in a Supplemental RI Report and a Feasibility Study. In letters issued in April 2015 and June 2016, the NYSDEC disapproved the Supplemental RI Report and demanded that the Company and Pfizer revise certain aspects of the Supplemental RI Report and Feasibility Study. The Company and Pfizer are in communications with the NYSDEC to address its written comments. As it is too soon to determine whether the communications with NYSDEC will result in any significant changes to the Company’s responsibilities, no change to the reserve has been made. ELT Harriman, LLC ("ELT"), the current owner of the Harriman site, is conducting other investigation and remediation activities under a separate NYSDEC directive.

No final remedy for the site has been determined, which will follow further discussions with the NYSDEC. The Company estimates the range for its share of the liability at the site to be between $2,000 and $7,000. As of June 30, 2016, the Company’s reserve was $3,515. 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 the immediately preceding owner, Vertellus Specialties Holdings (“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. In May 2016, some but not all of the Vertellus entities who are parties to the Company’s 2007 settlement agreement filed for restructuring under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Company is monitoring the bankruptcy proceeding and intends to assert all of its rights as a creditor.

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). While the Company continues to dispute the methodology used by the PRP group to arrive at its interim allocation for cash contributions, the Company paid the funding requests in 2010 and 2014-2015. A final allocation of SCP Site costs (excluding Berry’s Creek costs) is expected to be finalized during 2016. As of June 30, 2016, the Company’s reserve was $900, of which approximately $576 is expected to be covered by insurance.

The USEPA and a private party group are evaluating remediation plans for the Passaic River, Newark Bay, Hackensack River, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull and adjacent waters (the “Newark Bay Complex”). Although the Company is not involved in the USEPA action, it continues to monitor developments related to the site due to its past involvement in a previously settled state action relating to the Newark Bay Complex. The USEPA has finalized its decision on a cleanup plan for 8.3 miles of the lower Passaic River, and has estimated the cost of this plan at $1.38 billion. Due to the uncertainty of the future scope and timing of any possible claims against the Company, no liability has been recorded.

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.

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. 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.