Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 29, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company is subject to a variety of federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations covering the storage, handling, emission and discharge of materials into the environment, including CERCLA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act (including the 1990 amendments) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The Company's subsidiaries in the United States have been identified as potentially responsible parties with respect to several sites designated for cleanup under CERCLA or similar state laws, which impose liability for cleanup of certain waste sites and for related natural resource damages without regard to fault or the legality of waste generation or disposal. Persons liable for such costs and damages generally include the site owner or operator and persons that disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances found at those sites. Although CERCLA imposes joint and several liability on all potentially responsible parties, in application, the potentially responsible parties typically allocate the investigation and cleanup costs based upon, among other things, the volume of waste contributed by each potentially responsible party. Settlements can often be achieved through negotiations with the appropriate environmental agency or the other potentially responsible parties. Potentially responsible parties that contributed small amounts of waste (typically less than 1% of the waste) are often given the opportunity to settle as “de minimus” parties, resolving their liability for a particular site. The Company does not own or operate any of the waste sites with respect to which it has been named as a potentially responsible party by the government. Based on the Company's review and other factors, it believes that costs to the Company relating to environmental clean-up at these sites will not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or financial position. At March 29, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company had an accrued liability of approximately $2.0 million and $1.9 million, respectively, for various environmental-related liabilities to the extent costs are known or can be reasonably estimated as its liability. American Premier Underwriters Inc., a former parent of the Company, agreed to indemnify the Company against all environmental-related liabilities arising out of the Company’s or its predecessors’ ownership or operation of the Indiana Steel & Wire Company and Marathon Manufacturing Holdings, Inc. businesses (which were divested by the Company), without limitation as to time or amount. While it is difficult to estimate future environmental-related liabilities accurately, the Company does not currently anticipate any material adverse impact on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows as a result of compliance with federal, state, local or foreign environmental laws or regulations or cleanup costs of the sites discussed above. In 2007, the Company acquired the worldwide wire and cable business of Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold Inc., which operates as PDIC. As part of this acquisition, the seller agreed to indemnify the Company for certain environmental liabilities existing on the purchase closing. The seller’s obligation to indemnify the Company for these particular liabilities generally survived four years from the date the parties executed the definitive purchase agreement unless the Company has properly notified the seller before the expiry of the four year period. The seller also made certain representations and warranties related to environmental matters and the acquired business and agreed to indemnify the Company for breaches of those representation and warranties for a period of four years from the closing date. No indemnification claims for breach of representations and warranties were made during the indemnity period for the transaction. In addition, Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the Company. As of March 29, 2013, the Company was a defendant in approximately 29,092 cases brought in Federal District Courts throughout the United States. In the first quarter ended March 29, 2013, 30 asbestos cases were brought against the Company. In the calendar year 2012, 113 asbestos cases were brought against the Company. In the last 20 years, General Cable has had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, General Cable was dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product identification. As of March 29, 2013, 21,886 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the first quarter ended March 29, 2013, 18 asbestos cases were dismissed. In calendar year 2012, 66 cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 29,092 remaining pending cases, General Cable is aggressively defending these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to General Cable manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of General Cable product. For cases outside the Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) as of March 29, 2013, Plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 306 cases. In 167 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $153 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In the 138 other cases pending in state and federal district courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek approximately $388.0 million in damages from as many as 110 defendants. In one case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of $10.0 million. In addition, in relation to these 306 cases, there are claims of $219.0 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of March 29, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $5.1 million and $5.2 million respectively, and as of March 29, 2013 and December 31, 2012, had recovered approximately $0.5 million and $0.5 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits, respectively. The net amount of $4.6 million and $4.7 million, as of March 29, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, represents the Company's best estimate in order to cover resolution of current and future asbestos-related claims. The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are: (1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims that may be filed in the future. Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos reserve is relieved, when the Company receives a fully executed settlement release from the Plaintiff's counsel. As of March 29, 2013 and March 30, 2012, aggregate settlement costs were $8.7 million and $8.0 million, respectively. For the three months ended March 29, 2013 and March 30, 2012, settlement costs totaled $0.1 million and $0.1 million, respectively. As of March 29, 2013 and March 30, 2012, aggregate litigation costs were $21.7 million and $20.0 million, respectively. For the three months ended March 29, 2013 and March 30, 2012, litigation costs were $0.3 million and $0.3 million, respectively. In January 1994, General Cable entered into a settlement agreement with certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for the costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of the asbestos litigation described above. Subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, the insurers are responsible for a substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the defense or resolution of this litigation. In recent years one of the insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible for a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings. As a result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and the Company has had to bear a larger portion of the costs relating to these lawsuits. Moreover, certain of the other insurers may be financially unstable, and if one or more of these insurers enter into insurance liquidation proceedings, General Cable will be required to pay a larger portion of the costs incurred in connection with these cases. SAFRAN SA agreed to indemnify the Company for the full amount of losses arising from, related to or attributable to practices, if any, that are similar to previous practices investigated by the French competition authority for alleged competition law violations related to medium and high voltage cable markets. The Company has asserted a claim under this indemnity against SAFRAN SA related to the European Commission’s Statement of Objections, which is described in more detail below, to preserve its rights should an unfavorable outcome occur. On July 5, 2011, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections in relation to its ongoing competition investigation to a number of wire and cable manufacturers in the submarine and underground power cables business, including the Company's Spanish affiliate and its subsidiary, Silec. The allegations related to Silec are for the eleven months following its acquisition by the Company's Spanish affiliate, for which the Company has filed a claim for indemnification from SAFRAN SA to preserve its rights should an unfavorable outcome occur. A Statement of Objections is a procedural document in which the European Commission communicates its preliminary views in regard to possible infringement of European competition law and allows the companies identified in the Statement of Objections to present procedural and substantive arguments in response before a final decision is made. Any unfavorable decision by the European Commission is subject to appeal. The Statement of Objections issued to the Company alleges that two affiliates in Europe engaged in violations of competition law in the underground power cables businesses for a limited period of time. The Company responded to the Statement of Objections on October 28, 2011 and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the course of future proceedings with the European Commission on the Statement of Objections. The European Commission has significant discretion in assessing fines and the Statement of Objections has only provided limited guidance on how it could potentially assess fines on each of the named wire and cable companies alleged to have violated applicable competition laws. At this time, the Company believes that it has substantial defenses to the allegations contained in the Statement of Objections. However, if the Company's defenses are ultimately not successful, the Company could be assessed fines, which if imposed, could be substantial and may have a material impact on its consolidated financial results. While the Company continues to incur legal and associated costs in this matter, it is unable, at this time, to estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result as an outcome of these proceedings. During the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company became aware of a potential claim involving multiple parties regarding the failure of a newly installed transformer in France, which was manufactured and installed by an independent third party, at a customer's hydroelectric plant. The Company supplied and installed cables and terminations to the transformer, which failed as it was being energized. The transformer was significantly damaged and the customer is alleging losses consisting of damage to the transformer and consequential damages due to its inability to operate the facility. The customer retained a court appointed technical expert to review the evidence to determine the root cause of the transformer failure and to allocate liability to the parties found responsible for such losses. The investigation is ongoing at this time and the Company believes it has substantial defenses to potential liability in regard to the transformer failure. At this time, the Company is unable to predict with any certainty an estimated range of damages or whether it will have liability, if any, attributable to the transformer failure. In March 2012, the Company received formal notice of a claim for damages arising from a transformer fire that occurred in December 2010 allegedly resulting in loss of equipment and some consequential damages at a metal processing facility in Iceland. The Company supplied and installed cables and terminations to the transformer, which was manufactured and installed by an independent third party, during 2006 and the first quarter of 2007. The Company's work was inspected and accepted by the customer in March 2007. In August 2012, the customer initiated arbitration proceedings before the ICC Tribunal with a request to arbitrate in Pennsylvania. In September 2012, the Company initiated litigation in Pennsylvania state court seeking a declaration that it is not liable for any damages associated with the alleged loss resulting from the transformer fire and seeking to enjoin the ICC arbitration proceedings. The customer then moved the case from state to federal district court in the Western District of Pennsylvania which determined on motion that the ICC Tribunal not the court should decide whether the claims were arbitrable in the first instance. A decision on arbitrability is pending before the ICC Tribunal. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to potential liability in regard to the transformer fire and claimed loss. At this time, the Company is unable to predict with any certainty an estimated range of damages or whether it will have any liability, if any, attributable to the transformer fire. One of the Company's Brazilian subsidiaries is involved in an administrative proceeding with a state treasury office regarding whether tax incentives granted to the Company by one Brazilian state are applicable to goods sold in another Brazilian state from September 2008 to December 31, 2009. The Company believes it correctly relied on the tax incentives granted and that it has substantial defenses to their disallowance by the Brazilian state claimant. The principal amount claimed to be due during the contested period is approximately $8 million which does not include penalties and interest which could be substantial. In September 2012, the 1^st Chamber of the Administrative Court found that the Company was not liable for any incentive tax payments claimed by the state treasury office. This decision was appealed by the Brazilian state and the Administrative Court determined in April 2013 that the subsidiary is liable for a part of the contested amount. The Company subsidiary is seeking formal judicial review of this latest decision on the merits in the Civil Court and has obtained an injunction in April 2013 restraining collection of the tax pending the review process in the Civil Court in further proceedings. On December 19, 2012, the same Brazilian subsidiary received three notices of infraction from another Brazilian state related to alleged failure to pay taxes on the distribution of goods and services from one state for lack of appropriate documents and alleged failure to file electronic records with the state tax authorities in regard to inventories, goods receipts and invoices from acquisitions. The total amount of taxes allegedly due for the infractions is approximately $0.2 million and the total fines claimed amount to approximately $22.9 million. The company believes it is exempt from the taxes claimed and has very substantial defenses to the claims. The Company has filed opposition to all the claims in January 2013 and will vigorously defend itself against such claims. At this time, the Company is unable to predict with any certainty an estimated range of damages or whether it will have any liability, if any, attributable to the taxes claimed. The Company is also involved in various routine legal proceedings and administrative actions. Such proceedings and actions should not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its result of operations, cash flows or financial position. In Europe and Mediterranean as it relates to the 2005 purchase of shares of Silec, the Company has pledged to the bank the following: Silec shares, segment assets such as land and buildings and certain General Cable entities in Spain and Portugal, which have been designated as guarantors. The General Cable Executive Severance Benefit Plan (“Severance Plan”), effective January 1, 2008, applicable to the Company's executive officers includes a change in control provision such that the executives may receive payments or benefits in accordance with the Severance Plan to the extent that both a change of control and a triggering event, each as defined in the Severance Plan, occur. Unless there are circumstances of ineligibility, as defined, the Company must provide payments and benefits upon both a change in control and a triggering event. The Company has entered into various operating lease agreements related principally to certain administrative, manufacturing and distribution facilities and transportation equipment. At March 29, 2013, future minimum rental payments required under non-cancelable lease agreements during the twelve month periods beginning March 29, 2013 through March 2018 are $38.2 million, $36.1 million, $33.2 million, $26.0 million and $17.8 million, respectively, and $15.9 million thereafter. As of March 29, 2013, the Company had $53.2 million in letters of credit, $290.0 million in various performance bonds and $218.0 million in other guarantees. Other guarantees include bank guarantees and advance payment bonds. These letters of credit, performance bonds and guarantees are periodically renewed and are generally related to risk associated with self-insurance claims, defined benefit plan obligations, contract performance, quality and other various bank and financing guarantees. Advance payment bonds are often required by customers when the Company obtains advance payments to secure the production of cable for long term contracts. The advance payment bonds provide the customer protection on their deposit in the event that the Company does not perform under the contract. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources” within Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for excess availability under the Company’s various credit borrowings.

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is subject to a variety of federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations covering the storage, handling, emission and discharge of materials into the environment, including CERCLA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act (including the 1990 amendments) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

The Company's subsidiaries in the United States have been identified as potentially responsible parties with respect to several sites designated for cleanup under CERCLA or similar state laws, which impose liability for cleanup of certain waste sites and for related natural resource damages without regard to fault or the legality of waste generation or disposal. Persons liable for such costs and damages generally include the site owner or operator and persons that disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances found at those sites. Although CERCLA imposes joint and several liability on all potentially responsible parties, in application, the potentially responsible parties typically allocate the investigation and cleanup costs based upon, among other things, the volume of waste contributed by each potentially responsible party.

Settlements can often be achieved through negotiations with the appropriate environmental agency or the other potentially responsible parties. Potentially responsible parties that contributed small amounts of waste (typically less than 1% of the waste) are often given the opportunity to settle as “de minimus” parties, resolving their liability for a particular site. The Company does not own or operate any of the waste sites with respect to which it has been named as a potentially responsible party by the government. Based on the Company's review and other factors, it believes that costs to the Company relating to environmental clean-up at these sites will not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

At March 29, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company had an accrued liability of approximately $2.0 million and $1.9 million, respectively, for various environmental-related liabilities to the extent costs are known or can be reasonably estimated as its liability. American Premier Underwriters Inc., a former parent of the Company, agreed to indemnify the Company against all environmental-related liabilities arising out of the Company’s or its predecessors’ ownership or operation of the Indiana Steel & Wire Company and Marathon Manufacturing Holdings, Inc. businesses (which were divested by the Company), without limitation as to time or amount. While it is difficult to estimate future environmental-related liabilities accurately, the Company does not currently anticipate any material adverse impact on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows as a result of compliance with federal, state, local or foreign environmental laws or regulations or cleanup costs of the sites discussed above.

In 2007, the Company acquired the worldwide wire and cable business of Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold Inc., which operates as PDIC. As part of this acquisition, the seller agreed to indemnify the Company for certain environmental liabilities existing on the purchase closing. The seller’s obligation to indemnify the Company for these particular liabilities generally survived four years from the date the parties executed the definitive purchase agreement unless the Company has properly notified the seller before the expiry of the four year period. The seller also made certain representations and warranties related to environmental matters and the acquired business and agreed to indemnify the Company for breaches of those representation and warranties for a period of four years from the closing date. No indemnification claims for breach of representations and warranties were made during the indemnity period for the transaction.

In addition, Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the Company. As of March 29, 2013, the Company was a defendant in approximately 29,092 cases brought in Federal District Courts throughout the United States. In the first quarter ended March 29, 2013, 30 asbestos cases were brought against the Company. In the calendar year 2012, 113 asbestos cases were brought against the Company. In the last 20 years, General Cable has had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, General Cable was dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product identification. As of March 29, 2013, 21,886 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the first quarter ended March 29, 2013, 18 asbestos cases were dismissed. In calendar year 2012, 66 cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 29,092 remaining pending cases, General Cable is aggressively defending these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to General Cable manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of General Cable product.

For cases outside the Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) as of March 29, 2013, Plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 306 cases. In 167 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $153 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In the 138 other cases pending in state and federal district courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek approximately $388.0 million in damages from as many as 110 defendants. In one case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of $10.0 million. In addition, in relation to these 306 cases, there are claims of $219.0 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of March 29, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $5.1 million and $5.2 million respectively, and as of March 29, 2013 and December 31, 2012, had recovered approximately $0.5 million and $0.5 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits, respectively. The net amount of $4.6 million and $4.7 million, as of March 29, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, represents the Company's best estimate in order to cover resolution of current and future asbestos-related claims.

The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are: (1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims that may be filed in the future.

Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos reserve is relieved, when the Company receives a fully executed settlement release from the Plaintiff's counsel. As of March 29, 2013 and March 30, 2012, aggregate settlement costs were $8.7 million and $8.0 million, respectively. For the three months ended March 29, 2013 and March 30, 2012, settlement costs totaled $0.1 million and $0.1 million, respectively. As of March 29, 2013 and March 30, 2012, aggregate litigation costs were $21.7 million and $20.0 million, respectively. For the three months ended March 29, 2013 and March 30, 2012, litigation costs were $0.3 million and $0.3 million, respectively.

In January 1994, General Cable entered into a settlement agreement with certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for the costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of the asbestos litigation described above. Subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, the insurers are responsible for a substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the defense or resolution of this litigation. In recent years one of the insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible for a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings. As a result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and the Company has had to bear a larger portion of the costs relating to these lawsuits. Moreover, certain of the other insurers may be financially unstable, and if one or more of these insurers enter into insurance liquidation proceedings, General Cable will be required to pay a larger portion of the costs incurred in connection with these cases.

SAFRAN SA agreed to indemnify the Company for the full amount of losses arising from, related to or attributable to practices, if any, that are similar to previous practices investigated by the French competition authority for alleged competition law violations related to medium and high voltage cable markets. The Company has asserted a claim under this indemnity against SAFRAN SA related to the European Commission’s Statement of Objections, which is described in more detail below, to preserve its rights should an unfavorable outcome occur.

On July 5, 2011, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections in relation to its ongoing competition investigation to a number of wire and cable manufacturers in the submarine and underground power cables business, including the Company's Spanish affiliate and its subsidiary, Silec. The allegations related to Silec are for the eleven months following its acquisition by the Company's Spanish affiliate, for which the Company has filed a claim for indemnification from SAFRAN SA to preserve its rights should an unfavorable outcome occur. A Statement of Objections is a procedural document in which the European Commission communicates its preliminary views in regard to possible infringement of European competition law and allows the companies identified in the Statement of Objections to present procedural and substantive arguments in response before a final decision is made. Any unfavorable decision by the European Commission is subject to appeal. The Statement of Objections issued to the Company alleges that two affiliates in Europe engaged in violations of competition law in the underground power cables businesses for a limited period of time. The Company responded to the Statement of Objections on October 28, 2011 and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the course of future proceedings with the European Commission on the Statement of Objections.

The European Commission has significant discretion in assessing fines and the Statement of Objections has only provided limited guidance on how it could potentially assess fines on each of the named wire and cable companies alleged to have violated applicable competition laws. At this time, the Company believes that it has substantial defenses to the allegations contained in the Statement of Objections. However, if the Company's defenses are ultimately not successful, the Company could be assessed fines, which if imposed, could be substantial and may have a material impact on its consolidated financial results. While the Company continues to incur legal and associated costs in this matter, it is unable, at this time, to estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result as an outcome of these proceedings.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company became aware of a potential claim involving multiple parties regarding the failure of a newly installed transformer in France, which was manufactured and installed by an independent third party, at a customer's hydroelectric plant. The Company supplied and installed cables and terminations to the transformer, which failed as it was being energized. The transformer was significantly damaged and the customer is alleging losses consisting of damage to the transformer and consequential damages due to its inability to operate the facility. The customer retained a court appointed technical expert to review the evidence to determine the root cause of the transformer failure and to allocate liability to the parties found responsible for such losses. The investigation is ongoing at this time and the Company believes it has substantial defenses to potential liability in regard to the transformer failure. At this time, the Company is unable to predict with any certainty an estimated range of damages or whether it will have liability, if any, attributable to the transformer failure.

In March 2012, the Company received formal notice of a claim for damages arising from a transformer fire that occurred in December 2010 allegedly resulting in loss of equipment and some consequential damages at a metal processing facility in Iceland. The Company supplied and installed cables and terminations to the transformer, which was manufactured and installed by an independent third party, during 2006 and the first quarter of 2007. The Company's work was inspected and accepted by the customer in March 2007. In August 2012, the customer initiated arbitration proceedings before the ICC Tribunal with a request to arbitrate in Pennsylvania. In September 2012, the Company initiated litigation in Pennsylvania state court seeking a declaration that it is not liable for any damages associated with the alleged loss resulting from the transformer fire and seeking to enjoin the ICC arbitration proceedings. The customer then moved the case from state to federal district court in the Western District of Pennsylvania which determined on motion that the ICC Tribunal not the court should decide whether the claims were arbitrable in the first instance. A decision on arbitrability is pending before the ICC Tribunal. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to potential liability in regard to the transformer fire and claimed loss. At this time, the Company is unable to predict with any certainty an estimated range of damages or whether it will have any liability, if any, attributable to the transformer fire.

One of the Company's Brazilian subsidiaries is involved in an administrative proceeding with a state treasury office regarding whether tax incentives granted to the Company by one Brazilian state are applicable to goods sold in another Brazilian state from September 2008 to December 31, 2009. The Company believes it correctly relied on the tax incentives granted and that it has substantial defenses to their disallowance by the Brazilian state claimant. The principal amount claimed to be due during the contested period is approximately $8 million which does not include penalties and interest which could be substantial. In September 2012, the 1^st Chamber of the Administrative Court found that the Company was not liable for any incentive tax payments claimed by the state treasury office. This decision was appealed by the Brazilian state and the Administrative Court determined in April 2013 that the subsidiary is liable for a part of the contested amount. The Company subsidiary is seeking formal judicial review of this latest decision on the merits in the Civil Court and has obtained an injunction in April 2013 restraining collection of the tax pending the review process in the Civil Court in further proceedings.

On December 19, 2012, the same Brazilian subsidiary received three notices of infraction from another Brazilian state related to alleged failure to pay taxes on the distribution of goods and services from one state for lack of appropriate documents and alleged failure to file electronic records with the state tax authorities in regard to inventories, goods receipts and invoices from acquisitions. The total amount of taxes allegedly due for the infractions is approximately $0.2 million and the total fines claimed amount to approximately $22.9 million. The company believes it is exempt from the taxes claimed and has very substantial defenses to the claims. The Company has filed opposition to all the claims in January 2013 and will vigorously defend itself against such claims. At this time, the Company is unable to predict with any certainty an estimated range of damages or whether it will have any liability, if any, attributable to the taxes claimed.

The Company is also involved in various routine legal proceedings and administrative actions. Such proceedings and actions should not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its result of operations, cash flows or financial position.

In Europe and Mediterranean as it relates to the 2005 purchase of shares of Silec, the Company has pledged to the bank the following: Silec shares, segment assets such as land and buildings and certain General Cable entities in Spain and Portugal, which have been designated as guarantors.

The General Cable Executive Severance Benefit Plan (“Severance Plan”), effective January 1, 2008, applicable to the Company's executive officers includes a change in control provision such that the executives may receive payments or benefits in accordance with the Severance Plan to the extent that both a change of control and a triggering event, each as defined in the Severance Plan, occur. Unless there are circumstances of ineligibility, as defined, the Company must provide payments and benefits upon both a change in control and a triggering event.

The Company has entered into various operating lease agreements related principally to certain administrative, manufacturing and distribution facilities and transportation equipment. At March 29, 2013, future minimum rental payments required under non-cancelable lease agreements during the twelve month periods beginning March 29, 2013 through March 2018 are $38.2 million, $36.1 million, $33.2 million, $26.0 million and $17.8 million, respectively, and $15.9 million thereafter.

As of March 29, 2013, the Company had $53.2 million in letters of credit, $290.0 million in various performance bonds and $218.0 million in other guarantees. Other guarantees include bank guarantees and advance payment bonds. These letters of credit, performance bonds and guarantees are periodically renewed and are generally related to risk associated with self-insurance claims, defined benefit plan obligations, contract performance, quality and other various bank and financing guarantees. Advance payment bonds are often required by customers when the Company obtains advance payments to secure the production of cable for long term contracts. The advance payment bonds provide the customer protection on their deposit in the event that the Company does not perform under the contract. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources” within Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for excess availability under the Company’s various credit borrowings.