9.	CONTINGENCIES

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 March 31, 2018, 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 Condensed 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 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 was approximately R$26.7 million (Brazilian Reais), which was approximately $8.1 million U.S. dollars using the exchange rate as of March 31, 2018 and exclusive of any potentially court-imposed interest, fees or inflation adjustments. On October 5, 2016, the Court of Appeals re-heard all facts and legal questions presented in the case, and ruled in favor of the Company on all claims at issue. In doing so, the Court of Appeals dismissed all claims against the Company and vacated the judgment and damages previously ordered by the Fourth Civil Court of Curitiba. On September 30, 2017, BK filed its notice for a special appeal of the Court of Appeals ruling to the Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Federal Court. However, unless these higher courts find in favor of BK on any of its claims, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is final. As a result of the Court of Appeals ruling, the Company does not expect that this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations; however, it will continue to monitor these legal proceedings.

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 was stayed by agreement of the parties while the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) undertook a reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,986,546. In June 2010, the Patent Office notified the Company that the reexamination was completed and the Patent Office 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 may do so.

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 believes that the resolution of this lawsuit will not 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, if required to be paid by the Company, 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 it 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.

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.

Supreme Litigation

Prior to the Company’s acquisition of Supreme, a complaint was filed against Supreme Corporation, a subsidiary of Supreme, in a suit (SVI, Inc. v. Supreme Corporation, Hometown Trolley (a/k/a Double K, Inc.) and Dustin Pence) in the United States District Court, District of Nevada on May 16, 2016. The plaintiff is Supreme Corporation’s (“SC”) former trolley distributor. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 3, 2017, which alleges that SC’s sale of its trolley assets to another trolley manufacturer was improper. SC filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted in part on May 30, 2017. The remaining claims alleged against SC include: (i) misappropriation of trade secrets; (ii) civil conspiracy/collusion; (iii) tortious interference with contractual relationships; (iv) breach of contract; and (v) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiff alleges damages amounting to approximately $40 million. However, due to the inherent risk of litigation, the outcome of this case is uncertain and unpredictable; and, further, management believes that the allegations are without merit and is vigorously defending the matter. As a result, management does not believe this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Prior to the Company’s acquisition of Supreme, on November 4, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company’s subsidiary, Supreme Industries, Inc., Mark D. Weber (Supreme’s former Chief Executive Officer) and Matthew W. Long (Supreme’s former Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by making material, misleading statements in July 2016 regarding projected backlog. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. On February 14, 2017, the court transferred the venue of the case to the Northern District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of the plaintiff and the defendants. An amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2017 challenging statements made during a putative class period of October 22, 2015 through October 21, 2016. A motion to dismiss certain claims was filed on June 8, 2017 and is pending before the Court, and the case is stayed pending a ruling on the motion. Due to the inherent risk of litigation, the outcome of this case is uncertain and unpredictable; however, at this time, management believes that the allegations are without merit and is vigorously defending the matter. As a result, management does not believe this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Chassis Converter Pool Agreements

The Company, through its subsidiary Supreme, obtains most vehicle chassis for its specialized vehicle products directly from the chassis manufacturers under converter pool agreements. Chassis are obtained from the manufacturers based on orders from customers, and in some cases, for unallocated orders. The agreements generally state that the manufacturer will provide a supply of chassis to be maintained at the Company’s facilities with the condition that we will store such chassis and will not move, sell, or otherwise dispose of such chassis except under the terms of the agreement. In addition, the manufacturer typically retains the sole authority to authorize commencement of work on the chassis and to make certain other decisions with respect to the chassis including the terms and pricing of sales of the chassis to the manufacturer’s dealers. The manufacturer also does not transfer the certificate of origin to the Company nor permit the Company to sell or transfer the chassis to anyone other than the manufacturer (for ultimate resale to a dealer). Although the Company is party to related finance agreements with manufacturers, the Company has not historically settled, nor expects to in the future settle, any related obligations in cash. Instead, the obligation is settled by the manufacturer upon reassignment of the chassis to an accepted dealer, and the dealer is invoiced for the chassis by the manufacturer. Accordingly, as of March 31, 2018 the Company’s outstanding chassis converter pool with the manufacturer totaled $13.9 million and has included this financing agreement on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets within Prepaid expenses and other and Other accrued liabilities. All other chassis programs through its Supreme subsidiary are handled as consigned inventory belonging to the manufacturer and totaled approximately $2.5 million. Under these agreements, if the chassis is not delivered to a customer within a specified time frame the Company is required to pay a finance or storage charge on the chassis. Additionally, the Company receives finance support funds from manufacturers when the chassis are assigned into the Company’s chassis pool. Typically, chassis are converted and delivered to customers within 90 days of the receipt of the chassis by the Company.