11.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

The Company is involved in a number of legal proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of its business activities, and is periodically subject to governmental examinations (including by regulatory and tax authorities), and information gathering requests (collectively, "governmental examinations"). As of December 31, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant or was otherwise involved in numerous legal proceedings and governmental examinations in various jurisdictions, both in the United States and internationally.

The Company has recorded liabilities for certain of its outstanding legal proceedings and governmental examinations. A liability is accrued when it is both (a) probable that a loss with respect to the legal proceeding has occurred and (b) the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and governmental examinations that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that has been previously accrued. These legal proceedings, as well as governmental examinations, involve various lines of business of the Company and a variety of claims (including, but not limited to, common law tort, contract, antitrust and consumer protection claims), some of which present novel factual allegations and/or unique legal theories. While some matters pending against the Company specify the damages claimed by the plaintiff, many seek a not-yet-quantified amount of damages or are at very early stages of the legal process. Even when the amount of damages claimed against the Company are stated, the claimed amount may be exaggerated and/or unsupported. As a result, it is not currently possible to estimate a range of possible loss beyond previously accrued liabilities relating to some matters including those described below. Such previously accrued liabilities may not represent the Company's maximum loss exposure. The legal proceedings and governmental examinations underlying the estimated range will change from time to time and actual results may vary significantly from the currently accrued liabilities.

Based on its current knowledge, and taking into consideration its litigation-related liabilities, the Company believes it is not a party to, nor are any of its properties the subject of, any pending legal proceeding or governmental examination other than the matters below, which are addressed individually, that would have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or liquidity if determined in a manner adverse to the Company. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in such matters, the ultimate outcome of a particular matter could be material to the Company's operating results for a particular period depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of the Company's income for that period. Costs associated with the litigation and settlements of legal matters are reported within General and Administrative Expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Brazil Joint Venture

In March 2001, Bernard Krone Indústria e Comércio de Máquinas Agrícolas Ltda. (“BK”) filed suit against the Company in the Fourth Civil Court of Curitiba in the State of Paraná, Brazil. Because of the bankruptcy of BK, this proceeding is now pending before the Second Civil Court of Bankruptcies and Creditors Reorganization of Curitiba, State of Paraná (No. 232/99).

The case grows out of a joint venture agreement between BK and the Company related to marketing of RoadRailer trailers in Brazil and other areas of South America. When BK was placed into the Brazilian equivalent of bankruptcy late in 2000, the joint venture was dissolved. BK subsequently filed its lawsuit against the Company alleging that it was forced to terminate business with other companies because of the exclusivity and non-compete clauses purportedly found in the joint venture agreement. BK asserted damages, exclusive of any potentially court-imposed interest or inflation adjustments, of approximately R$20.8 million (Brazilian Reais). BK did not change the amount of damages it asserted following its filing of the case in 2001.

A bench (non-jury) trial was held on March 30, 2010 in Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. On November 22, 2011, the Fourth Civil Court of Curitiba partially granted BK’s claims, and ordered Wabash to pay BK lost profits, compensatory, economic and moral damages in excess of the amount of compensatory damages asserted by BK. The total ordered damages amount is approximately R$26.7 million (Brazilian Reais), which is approximately $6.9 million U.S. dollars using current exchange rates and exclusive of any potentially court-imposed interest, fees or inflation adjustments (which are currently estimated at a maximum of approximately $48 million, at current exchange rates, but may change with the passage of time and/or the discretion of the court at the time of final judgment in this matter). Due, in part, to the amount and type of damages awarded by the Fourth Civil Court of Curitiba, Wabash immediately filed for clarification of the judgment. The Fourth Civil Court has issued its clarification of judgment, leaving the underlying decision unchanged and referring the parties to the State of Paraná Court of Appeals for any further appeal of the decision. As such, the Company filed its notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals, as well as its initial appeal papers, on April 22, 2013. The Court of Appeals has the authority to re-hear all facts presented to the lower court, as well as to reconsider the legal questions presented in the case, and to render a new judgment in the case without regard to the lower court’s findings. Pending outcome of this appeal process, the judgment is not enforceable by the plaintiff. Any ruling from the Court of Appeals is not expected before the second quarter of 2016, at the earliest, and, accordingly, the judgment rendered by the lower court cannot be enforced prior to that time, and may be overturned or reduced as a result of this process. The Company believes that the claims asserted by BK are without merit and it intends to continue to vigorously defend its position. The Company has not recorded a charge with respect to this loss contingency as of December 31, 2015. Furthermore, at this time, the Company does not have sufficient information to predict the ultimate outcome of the case and is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss or range of loss that it may be required to pay at the conclusion of the case. The Company will reassess the need for the recognition of a loss contingency upon official assignment of the case in the Court of Appeals, upon a decision to settle this case with the plaintiffs or an internal decision as to an amount that the Company would be willing to settle or upon the outcome of the appeals process.

Intellectual Property

In October 2006, the Company filed a patent infringement suit against Vanguard National Corporation (“Vanguard”) regarding the Company’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,986,546 and 6,220,651 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Civil Action No. 4:06-cv-135). The Company amended the Complaint in April 2007. In May 2007, Vanguard filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint, along with Counterclaims seeking findings of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the subject patents. The Company filed a reply to Vanguard’s counterclaims in May 2007, denying any wrongdoing or merit to the allegations as set forth in the counterclaims. The case has currently been stayed by agreement of the parties while the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) undertakes a reexamination of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,986,546. In June 2010, the Patent Office notified the Company that the reexamination is complete and the Patent Office has reissued U.S. Patent No. 6,986,546 without cancelling any claims of the patent. The parties have not yet petitioned the Court to lift the stay, and it is unknown at this time when the parties’ petition to lift the stay may be filed or granted.

The Company believes that its claims against Vanguard have merit and that the claims asserted by Vanguard are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position and intellectual property. The Company does not believe that the resolution of this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, liquidity or future results of operations. However, at this stage of the proceeding, no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the case.

Walker Acquisition

In connection with the Company’s acquisition of Walker in May 2012, there is an outstanding claim of approximately $2.9 million for unpaid benefits that is currently in dispute and that is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Environmental Disputes

In August 2014, the Company was noticed as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (“DHEC”) pertaining to the Philip Services Site located in Rock Hill, South Carolina pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and corresponding South Carolina statutes. PRPs include parties identified through manifest records as having contributed to deliveries of hazardous substances to the Philip Services Site between 1979 and 1999. The DHEC’s allegation that the Company was a PRP arises out of four manifest entries in 1989 under the name of a company unaffiliated with Wabash National (or any of its former or current subsidiaries) that purport to be delivering a de minimis amount of hazardous waste to the Philip Services Site “c/o Wabash National Corporation.” As such, the Philip Services Site PRP Group (“PRP Group”) notified Wabash in August 2014 that is was offering the Company the opportunity to resolve any liabilities associated with the Philip Services Site by entering into a Cash Out and Reopener Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the PRP Group, as well as a Consent Decree with the DHEC. The Company has accepted the offer from the PRP Group to enter into the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree, while reserving its rights to contest its liability for any deliveries of hazardous materials to the Philips Services Site. The requested settlement payment is immaterial to the Company’s financial conditions or operations, and as a result, if the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree are finalized, the payment to be made by the Company thereunder is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Bulk Tank International, S. de R.L. de C.V. (“Bulk”) entered into agreements in 2011 with the Mexican federal environmental agency, PROFEPA, and the applicable state environmental agency, PROPAEG, pursuant to PROFEPA’s and PROPAEG’s respective environmental audit programs to resolve noncompliance with federal and state environmental laws at Bulk’s Guanajuato facility. Bulk completed all required corrective actions and received a Certification of Clean Industry from PROPAEG, and is seeking the same certification from PROFEPA, which the Company expects it will receive by early 2016, following the conclusion of a final audit process that commenced in December 2014. As a result, the Company does not expect that this matter will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

In January 2012, the Company was noticed as a PRP by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) pertaining to the Marine Shale Processors Site located in Amelia, Louisiana (“MSP Site”) pursuant to CERCLA and corresponding Louisiana statutes. PRPs include current and former owners and operators of facilities at which hazardous substances were allegedly disposed. The EPA’s allegation that the Company is a PRP arises out of one alleged shipment of waste to the MSP Site in 1992 from the Company’s branch facility in Dallas, Texas. As such, the MSP Site PRP Group notified the Company in January 2012 that, as a result of a March 18, 2009 Cooperative Agreement for Site Investigation and Remediation entered into between the MSP Site PRP Group and the LDEQ, the Company was being offered a “De Minimis Cash-Out Settlement” to contribute to the remediation costs, which would remain open until February 29, 2012. The Company chose not to enter into the settlement and has denied any liability. In addition, the Company has requested that the MSP Site PRP Group remove the Company from the list of PRPs for the MSP Site, based upon the following facts: the Company acquired this branch facility in 1997 – five years after the alleged shipment - as part of the assets the Company acquired out of the Fruehauf Trailer Corporation (“Fruehauf”) bankruptcy (Case No. 96-1563, United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (“Bankruptcy Court”)); as part of the Asset Purchase Agreement regarding the Company’s purchase of assets from Fruehauf, the Company did not assume liability for “Off-Site Environmental Liabilities,” which are defined to include any environmental claims arising out of the treatment, storage, disposal or other disposition of any Hazardous Substance at any location other than any of the acquired locations/assets; the Bankruptcy Court, in an Order dated May 26, 1999, also provided that, except for those certain specified liabilities assumed by the Company under the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Company and its subsidiaries shall not be subject to claims asserting successor liability; and the “no successor liability” language of the Asset Purchase Agreement and the Bankruptcy Court Order form the basis for the Company’s request that it be removed from the list of PRPs for the MSP Site. The MSP Site PRP Group is currently considering the Company’s request, but has provided no timeline to the Company for a response. However, the MSP Site PRP Group has agreed to indefinitely extend the time period by which the Company must respond to the De Minimis Cash-Out Settlement offer. The Company does not expect that this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

In September 2003, the Company was noticed as a PRP by the EPA pertaining to the Motorola 52nd Street, Phoenix, Arizona Superfund Site (the “Superfund Site”) pursuant to CERCLA. The EPA’s allegation that the Company was a PRP arises out of the Company’s acquisition of a former branch facility located approximately five miles from the original Superfund Site. The Company acquired this facility in 1997, operated the facility until 2000, and sold the facility to a third party in 2002. In June 2010, the Company was contacted by the Roosevelt Irrigation District (“RID”) informing it that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) had approved a remediation plan in excess of $100 million for the RID portion of the Superfund Site, and demanded that the Company contribute to the cost of the plan or be named as a defendant in a CERCLA action to be filed in July 2010. The Company initiated settlement discussions with the RID and the ADEQ in July 2010 to provide a full release from the RID, and a covenant not-to-sue and contribution protection regarding the former branch property from the ADEQ, in exchange for payment from the Company. If the settlement is approved by all parties, it will prevent any third party from successfully bringing claims against the Company for environmental contamination relating to this former branch property. The Company has been awaiting approval from the ADEQ since the settlement was first proposed in July 2010. In December 2015, we received tentative approval of our settlement offer from the ADEQ, and are now awaiting concurring approval from the RID. Based on communications with the RID and ADEQ in December 2015, we do not expect to receive a response regarding the approval of the settlement from the RID for, at least, several additional months. Based upon the Company’s limited period of ownership of the former branch property, and the fact that it no longer owns the former branch property, it does not anticipate that the RID will reject the proposed settlement, but no assurance can be given at this time as to the RID’s response to the settlement proposal tentatively approved by the ADEQ. The proposed settlement terms have been accrued and did not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations, and the Company believes that any ongoing proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

In January 2006, the Company received a letter from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources indicating that a site that the Company formerly owned near Charlotte, North Carolina has been included on the state's October 2005 Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites Priority List. The letter states that the Company was being notified in fulfillment of the state's “statutory duty” to notify those who own and those who at present are known to be responsible for each Site on the Priority List. Following receipt of this notice, no action has ever been requested from the Company, and since 2006 the Company has not received any further communications regarding this matter from the state of North Carolina. The Company does not expect that this designation will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Environmental Litigation Commitments and Contingencies

The Company generates and handles certain material, wastes and emissions in the normal course of operations that are subject to various and evolving federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations.

The Company assesses its environmental liabilities on an on-going basis by evaluating currently available facts, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations as well as experience in past treatment and remediation efforts. Based on these evaluations, the Company estimates a lower and upper range for treatment and remediation efforts and recognizes a liability for such probable costs based on the information available at the time. As of December 31, 2015, in addition to a reserve of $0.2 million relating to the ADEQ proposed settlement discussed above, the Company had reserved estimated remediation costs of $0.5 million for activities at existing and former properties which are recorded within Other Accrued Liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Letters of Credit

As of December 31, 2015, the Company had standby letters of credit totaling $6.0 million issued in connection with workers compensation claims and surety bonds.

Purchase Commitments

The Company has $72.4 million in purchase commitments through March 2017 for various raw material commodities, including aluminum, steel and nickel as well as other raw material components which are within normal production requirements.