(12)	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.

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"). 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. At June 30, 2018, these reserves were $17,800, of which $16,726 is included in “Other non-current liabilities” on the Company’s balance sheet. At December 31, 2017, the reserves were $17,511, of which $16,976 is included in “Other non-current liabilities” on the Company’s balance sheet. The increase in the reserves includes adjustments to reserves of $799, partially offset by payments of $510. 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.

Bayonne

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 completed an investigation and sampling plan at the property pursuant to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (“NJDEP”) private oversight program. The results will be used to develop a proposed remedial plan for the site, an outline of which was completed. Among other things, the remedial plan is anticipated to address removal of certain impacted soils and implementation of engineering controls and deed restrictions. Once prepared, the remedial plan will set forth further details of any cleanup. Estimates of the Company’s future liability for remediation costs have been revised accordingly. As of June 30, 2018, the Company’s reserve was $665.

Clifton and Carlstadt

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, and the Company continues to move forward with the projects at each site in accordance with the established schedules and work plans. As of June 30, 2018, the Company’s reserve was $1,854.

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 (“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 requested an initial Phase I remedy that focuses 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 Phase I remedy and the extent of future action is expected to be at least partially determined by the outcome of this initial phase. In April 2017, USEPA approved the requested addendum to the RI/FS Work Plan, which included the description of the phased and adaptive management approach to the Berry’s Creek remedy.

The scope of remedial activities in the initial Phase I remedy is currently being developed and based upon preliminary cost estimates, the Company’s reserve was $9,728 as of June 30, 2018. The estimated costs for the initial Phase I remedy may be further developed and the Company’s accrual may change based upon the final remedy selected and revisions to cost estimates. At this time it is not known when the costs for the complete remediation plan will be estimable, and as such, no accrual beyond the initial Phase I remedy has been recorded. The Company’s share has been preliminarily estimated by the PRP group at 2.4%. 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.

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 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.

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. USEPA has commenced its 5-year review process, and USEPA’s review of the site is on-going. It is unclear if such review, together with an agreed proposed modification to the USEPA Consent Decree, will result in any additional site work. As of June 30, 2018, the Company’s reserve was $329, to cover long-term ground water monitoring and related costs.

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 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. Since 2014, Pfizer and the Company have performed supplemental remedial investigation measures requested by the NYSDEC, and the findings have been submitted to NYSDEC in various reports, including a study evaluating the feasibility of certain remedial alternatives in August 2016. By letter dated January 5, 2017, NYSDEC disapproved such feasibility study report and requested certain revisions to the report. The Company and Pfizer engaged in further discussions with NYSDEC and have agreed to submit a revised version of the August 2016 feasibility study to address certain of NYSDEC’s requests. In September 2017, the NYSDEC requested that Pfizer, the Company and the current owner of the Harriman Site, ELT Harriman LLC (“ELT”), conduct an investigation of additional constituents not addressed under the 1997 ROD based on the detection of those constituents at the Harriman Site and other properties in the area. The parties have requested more information from the State of New York to evaluate the request, while also responding to NYSDEC that no further investigation was warranted.

As it is too soon to determine whether the NYSDEC’s requests or the reports and remedial plans, when finalized, will result in any significant changes to the Company’s responsibilities, no change to the reserve has been made. ELT 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, 2018, the Company’s reserve was $3,365. 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 has filed several claims as creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding and will continue to monitor the bankruptcy proceeding.

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). While the Company continues to dispute the methodology used by the PRP group to arrive at its interim allocation for cash contributions, the Company has paid the funding requests. A final allocation of SCP Site costs (excluding Berry’s Creek costs) is expected to be finalized in 2018. As of June 30, 2018, the Company’s reserve was $747, of which approximately $478 is expected to be covered by insurance.

Newark Bay Complex

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.

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).

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.

Following trial in 2008 in the sole remaining case brought by four health care insurers, the District Court entered judgment against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex. The judgment was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “D.C. Circuit”) in 2011, resulting in a remand to the District Court. On remand, the District Court dismissed certain self-funded customer plaintiffs due to their failure to satisfy the requirements of federal jurisdiction. Subsequently, the District Court entered an order remitting certain damages. Without fees, costs, or post-judgment interest, the current judgment against Mylan, Gyma, and Cambrex was $67,260. Mylan, Gyma, and Cambrex again appealed to the D.C. Circuit. In July 2018, Mylan, Gyma, and Cambrex reached a settlement with the remaining plaintiffs. After the settlement is finalized, Mylan, Gyma, and Cambrex will file a motion to vacate the judgment. Cambrex has been fully indemnified by Mylan for the settlement payments.