Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is obligated under various operating leases for office and manufacturing space, machinery, and equipment. Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable capital and operating leases (with initial or remaining lease terms in excess of one year) as of December 31 are as follows:



	Capital		Operating	Total Future Payments
2018	$	1,433	115,736	117,169
2019	1,094		91,226	92,320
2020	769		70,146	70,915
2021	597		47,356	47,953
2022	590		26,927	27,517
Thereafter	3,954		39,615	43,569
Total payments	8,437		391,006	399,443
Less amount representing interest	1,510
Present value of capitalized lease payments	$	6,927

Rental expense under operating leases was $145,176, $125,103 and $116,633 in 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

The Company had approximately $56,267 and $941 in standby letters of credit for various insurance contracts and commitments to foreign vendors as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively that expire within two years.

The Company is involved in litigation from time to time in the regular course of its business. Except as noted below and in Note 12-Income Taxes Belgian Tax Matter, 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.

Alabama Municipal Litigation

In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden, Alabama (the “Gadsden Water Board”) filed an individual complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals containing perfluorinated compounds, including the Company. On October 26, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, alleging diversity of citizenship and fraudulent joinder. The Gadsden Water Board filed a motion to remand the case back to the state court, and the defendants opposed the Gadsden Water Board’s motion. The federal court granted Gadsden Water Board's motion for remand. On October 24, 2017, the Company appealed the federal court's determination that co-defendant Industrial Chemicals, Inc. ("ICI") was properly joined as a party to the case. On February 22, 2018, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ICI's presence in the case deprives the federal court of jurisdiction over the case.

In May, 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama (the “Centre Water Board”) filed a very similar complaint to the Gadsden Water Board complaint in the Circuit Court of Cherokee County. On June 19, 2017, the defendants removed this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, again alleging diversity of citizenship and fraudulent joinder. The Centre Water Board filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, and the defendants opposed the Centre Water Board’s motion. The federal court granted Centre Water Board's motion for remand. On December 6, 2017, the Company appealed the federal court's determination that co-defendant ICI was properly joined as a party to that case as well. On January 31, 2018, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ICI's presence in the case deprives the federal court of jurisdiction over the case.

The Company has never manufactured perfluorinated compounds but purchased them for use in the manufacture of its carpets prior to 2007. The Gadsden and Centre Water Boards are not alleging that chemical levels in the Company’s wastewater discharge exceeded legal limits. Instead, the Gadsden and Centre Water Boards are seeking lost profits based on allegations that their customers decreased water purchases, as well as reimbursement for the cost of a filter and punitive damages.

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 was named as a defendant in a number of the individual cases, as well as in two consolidated amended class action complaints on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products and on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers. In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, sought 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 would have been subject to being tripled under US antitrust laws.

On March 23 and April 30, 2015, the Company entered into agreements to settle all claims brought by the class of direct and indirect purchasers, and the trial court entered orders granting approval of the settlements on November 19, 2015 and January 27, 2016. Certain individual members of the indirect purchaser class sought to overturn the approval through appeals to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, all of which were dismissed. The Company has also entered into settlement agreements resolving all of the claims brought on behalf of all of the consolidated individual lawsuits.

In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a Canadian Class action, which alleged similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions. On June 12, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of Canadian plaintiffs.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing but settled to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation.

During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company recorded a $122,480 charge within selling, general and administrative expenses for the settlement and defense of the antitrust cases. All of the antitrust cases have now been finally settled and all consolidated cases have been dismissed.

General

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.

The Company is subject to various federal, state, local and foreign environmental health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing air emissions, wastewater discharges, the use, storage, treatment, recycling and disposal of solid and hazardous materials and finished product, and the cleanup of contamination associated therewith. Because of the nature of the Company’s business, the Company has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs relating to compliance with such laws and regulations. The Company is involved in various proceedings relating to environmental matters and is currently engaged in environmental investigation, remediation and post-closure care programs at certain sites. The Company has provided accruals for such activities that it has determined to be both probable and reasonably estimable. The Company does not expect that the ultimate liability with respect to such activities 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.