Commitments and contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 03, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Commitments and contingencies 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. Polyurethane Foam Litigation 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 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 were 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. Any damages actually awarded at trial are subject to being tripled under U.S. antitrust laws. On March 23, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of direct purchasers, and on April 30, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of indirect purchasers. Both settlement agreements are subject to court approval, which the Company expects to receive. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing but settled the class actions to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. The Company remains a defendant in a number of cases involving other purchasers of polyurethane foam products not sold by the Company. On April 23, 2015, the Court consolidated twelve of these lawsuits involving non-class claims filed against the Company by direct purchasers of polyurethane foam. These consolidated cases had been scheduled for trial to begin August 18, 2015. The Company has executed agreements to settle all of the cases set for trial in August and ten additional individual cases. The Company has also reached an agreement in principle to settle one additional individual case. Three individual cases remain pending against the Company, all of which were brought by purchasers of polyurethane foam products not sold by the Company. The amount of the 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 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. On June 12, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of Canadian plaintiffs. The Company continues to deny all allegations of wrongdoing but is settling to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. During the three months ended April 4, 2015 the Company recorded a $125,000 charge within selling, general and administrative expenses for the settlement and defense of the antitrust cases. The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of all of these cases have been made. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of the remaining cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition. Belgian Tax Matter 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 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 brought these two years before the Court of First Appeal in Bruges. 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 the quarter ended June 28, 2014, the Company received a formal assessment for the year ended December 31, 2008, totaling €30,131, against which the Company also submitted its formal protest. All 4 additional years were brought before the Court of First Appeal in November 2014. In January of 2015, the Company met with the Court of First Appeal in Bruges and agreed with the Belgian tax authorities to consolidate and argue the issues regarding the years 2005 and 2009, and apply the ruling to all of the open years (to the extent there are no additional facts/procedural arguments in the other years). The case is scheduled to be argued on December 2, 2015. 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 and contingencies

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.

Polyurethane Foam Litigation

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 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 were 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. Any damages actually awarded at trial are subject to being tripled under U.S. antitrust laws.

On March 23, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of direct purchasers, and on April 30, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of indirect purchasers. Both settlement agreements are subject to court approval, which the Company expects to receive. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing but settled the class actions to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation.

The Company remains a defendant in a number of cases involving other purchasers of polyurethane foam products not sold by the Company. On April 23, 2015, the Court consolidated twelve of these lawsuits involving non-class claims filed against the Company by direct purchasers of polyurethane foam. These consolidated cases had been scheduled for trial to begin August 18, 2015. The Company has executed agreements to settle all of the cases set for trial in August and ten additional individual cases. The Company has also reached an agreement in principle to settle one additional individual case. Three individual cases remain pending against the Company, all of which were brought by purchasers of polyurethane foam products not sold by the Company. The amount of the 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 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. On June 12, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of Canadian plaintiffs. The Company continues to deny all allegations of wrongdoing but is settling to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation.

During the three months ended April 4, 2015 the Company recorded a $125,000 charge within selling, general and administrative expenses for the settlement and defense of the antitrust cases. The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of all of these cases have been made. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of the remaining cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition.

Belgian Tax Matter

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 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 brought these two years before the Court of First Appeal in Bruges.

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 the quarter ended June 28, 2014, the Company received a formal assessment for the year ended December 31, 2008, totaling €30,131, against which the Company also submitted its formal protest. All 4 additional years were brought before the Court of First Appeal in November 2014.

In January of 2015, the Company met with the Court of First Appeal in Bruges and agreed with the Belgian tax authorities to consolidate and argue the issues regarding the years 2005 and 2009, and apply the ruling to all of the open years (to the extent there are no additional facts/procedural arguments in the other years). The case is scheduled to be argued on December 2, 2015.

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.