Commitments, contingencies and other	9 Months Ended
Sep. 27, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, contingencies and other	Commitments, contingencies and other The Company is involved in litigation from time to time in the regular course of its business. Except as noted below, there are no material legal proceedings pending or known by the Company to be contemplated to which the Company is a party or to which any of its property is subject. Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the Company’s carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of the individual cases (the first filed on August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class action complaints the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products, and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers. All pending cases in which the Company has been named as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196. In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. The direct purchaser class currently claims damages from all of the defendants named in the lawsuit of up to approximately $1,200,000 which amount will be reduced by the value of claims made by plaintiffs that opt out of the class. Any damages actually awarded at trial are subject to being tripled under US antitrust laws. The amount of damages in the remaining cases varies or has not yet been specified by the plaintiffs. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs and injunctive relief against future violations. In April 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action claims brought by the direct purchasers, and in May 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the claims brought by the indirect purchasers. On July 19, 2011, the Court denied all defendants’ motions to dismiss. On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the direct and indirect purchaser classes. The Company sought permission to appeal the certification order on April 24, 2014, and the petition was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on September 29, 2014. In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions and seek unspecified damages and punitive damages. The Company denies all of the allegations in these actions and will vigorously defend itself. In January 2012, the Company received a €23,789 assessment from the Belgian tax authority related to its year ended December 31, 2008, asserting that the Company had understated its Belgian taxable income for that year. The Company filed a formal protest in the first quarter of 2012 refuting the Belgian tax authority's position. The Belgian tax authority set aside the assessment in the third quarter of 2012 and refunded all related deposits, including interest income of €1,583 earned on such deposits. However, on October 23, 2012, the Belgian tax authority notified the Company of its intent to increase the Company's taxable income for the year ended December 31, 2008 under a revised theory. On May 20, 2014, the Company was re-assessed by the Belgian tax authority for the year ended December 31, 2008 in the amount of €30,132 including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed a formal protest in August 2014. On December 28, 2012, the Belgian tax authority issued assessments for the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009, in the amounts of €46,135 and €35,567, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed a formal protest during the first quarter of 2013 relating to the new assessments. In September 2013, the Belgian tax authority denied the Company's protests, and the Company has petitioned the applicable Belgian court to hear the case. In December 2013, the Belgian tax authority issued additional assessments related to the years ended December 31, 2006, 2007, and 2010, in the amounts of €38,817, €39,635, and €43,117, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed formal protests during the first quarter of 2014, refuting the Belgian tax authority's position for each of the years assessed. In August 2014, the Belgian tax authority denied these protests and the Company plans to petition the applicable Belgian court to hear the case. The Company continues to disagree with the views of the Belgian tax authority on this matter and will persist in its vigorous defense. Although there can be no assurances, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, liquidity or cash flows in a given quarter or year. The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made for probable losses that are reasonably estimable. These contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and we are unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, in excess of amounts accrued. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or liquidity in a given quarter or year.

Commitments, contingencies and other

The Company is involved in litigation from time to time in the regular course of its business. Except as noted below, there are no material legal proceedings pending or known by the Company to be contemplated to which the Company is a party or to which any of its property is subject.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the Company’s carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of the individual cases (the first filed on August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class action complaints the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products, and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers. All pending cases in which the Company has been named as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. The direct purchaser class currently claims damages from all of the defendants named in the lawsuit of up to approximately $1,200,000 which amount will be reduced by the value of claims made by plaintiffs that opt out of the class. Any damages actually awarded at trial are subject to being tripled under US antitrust laws. The amount of damages in the remaining cases varies or has not yet been specified by the plaintiffs. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs and injunctive relief against future violations.

In April 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action claims brought by the direct purchasers, and in May 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the claims brought by the indirect purchasers. On July 19, 2011, the Court denied all defendants’ motions to dismiss. On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the direct and indirect purchaser classes. The Company sought permission to appeal the certification order on April 24, 2014, and the petition was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on September 29, 2014.

In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions and seek unspecified damages and punitive damages. The Company denies all of the allegations in these actions and will vigorously defend itself.

In January 2012, the Company received a €23,789 assessment from the Belgian tax authority related to its year ended December 31, 2008, asserting that the Company had understated its Belgian taxable income for that year. The Company filed a formal protest in the first quarter of 2012 refuting the Belgian tax authority's position. The Belgian tax authority set aside the assessment in the third quarter of 2012 and refunded all related deposits, including interest income of €1,583 earned on such deposits. However, on October 23, 2012, the Belgian tax authority notified the Company of its intent to increase the Company's taxable income for the year ended December 31, 2008 under a revised theory. On May 20, 2014, the Company was re-assessed by the Belgian tax authority for the year ended December 31, 2008 in the amount of €30,132 including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed a formal protest in August 2014.

On December 28, 2012, the Belgian tax authority issued assessments for the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009, in the amounts of €46,135 and €35,567, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed a formal protest during the first quarter of 2013 relating to the new assessments. In September 2013, the Belgian tax authority denied the Company's protests, and the Company has petitioned the applicable Belgian court to hear the case.

In December 2013, the Belgian tax authority issued additional assessments related to the years ended December 31, 2006, 2007, and 2010, in the amounts of €38,817, €39,635, and €43,117, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed formal protests during the first quarter of 2014, refuting the Belgian tax authority's position for each of the years assessed. In August 2014, the Belgian tax authority denied these protests and the Company plans to petition the applicable Belgian court to hear the case.

The Company continues to disagree with the views of the Belgian tax authority on this matter and will persist in its vigorous defense. Although there can be no assurances, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, liquidity or cash flows in a given quarter or year.

The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made for probable losses that are reasonably estimable. These contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and we are unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, in excess of amounts accrued. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or liquidity in a given quarter or year.