Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 01, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Environmental matters We are 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. Our 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. We do not own or operate any of the waste sites with respect to which we have been named as a potentially responsible party by the government. Based on our review and other factors, we believe that costs relating to environmental clean-up at these sites will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position. On March 7, 2011, GK Technologies, Inc. (“GK Tech”) was served with a Complaint filed on February 24, 2011, by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (“HACLA”) arising under CERCLA, California statutory law, and common law in the case known as Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles v. PCC Technical Industries, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-01626 FMO (C.D. Cal.). The Housing Authority contends that GK Tech and several other defendants are responsible for environmental contamination at property located at 9901 S. Alameda Street in Los Angeles (the “Site”), which was apparently the location of a steel recycling mill formerly operated by a former subsidiary of GK Tech. The former subsidiary was legally dissolved in September 1993. GK Tech has asserted various defenses to the claim, including the dissolution of the former subsidiary and the lack of knowledge of the environmental contamination. The Court had previously determined, as a matter of law, that the former subsidiary is one of several potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) liable under CERCLA for costs of remediation of the contamination at the Site. HACLA began conducting remediation work at the Site in April 2015, with projected costs at the time ranging from $5 million to $13 million. In October 2015, HACLA substantially expanded the scope of the remediation work at the Site and now estimates that the total costs to complete the work are between $21 million and $30 million. HACLA has collected some amounts through prior settlements with parties that owned and/or conducted operations on the Site after March 1979, which amounts we believe would partially offset any possible liability of GK Tech. GK Tech believes that it has very good defenses to HACLA’s successor liability theories but, nevertheless, it is reasonably possible that GK Tech could be held liable for between $0 million and $30 million in this case. At July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had an accrued liability of approximately $4.6 million and $3.6 million, respectively, for various environmental-related liabilities to the extent costs are known or can be reasonably estimated as a liability. While it is difficult to estimate future environmental-related liabilities accurately, we do not currently anticipate any material adverse effect on our 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. Asbestos litigation We have been a defendant in asbestos litigation for the past 28 years. Our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by us. As of July 1, 2016, we were a defendant in approximately 316 cases brought in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In the six months ended July 1, 2016, 37 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the calendar year 2015, 99 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the last 28 years, we have had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product identification. As of July 1, 2016, 50,920 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the six months ended July 1, 2016, 45 asbestos cases were dismissed. As of December 31, 2015, 50,875 cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 316 remaining pending cases, we are aggressively defending these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to whether we manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of our product. As of July 1, 2016, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 165 cases. In 55 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $692 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In 109 other cases pending in state and federal district courts, plaintiffs seek approximately $440 million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In one case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of $4 million. In addition, in relation to these 165 cases, there are claims of $280 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $4.3 million and $4.1 million, respectively, and as of July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2015, had recovered approximately $0.4 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. The net amount of $3.9 million and $3.7 million, as of July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, represents our best estimate in order to cover resolution of current 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 accrual is relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from the plaintiff's counsel. As of July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2015, aggregate settlement costs were $9.8 million and $9.7 million, respectively. For the six months ended July 1, 2016 and July 3, 2015, settlement costs totaled less than $0.1 million. As of July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2015, aggregate litigation costs were $26.7 million and $26.1 million, respectively. For the six months ended July 1, 2016 and July 3, 2015, litigation costs were $0.6 million and $0.7 million, respectively. In January 1994, we 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 were responsible for a substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the defense or resolution of this litigation. However, 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 and another became insolvent. As a result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and we have had to bear substantially most of the costs relating to these lawsuits. European Commission competition matter As part of the Company’s acquisition of Silec in December 2005, SAFRAN SA (“SAFRAN”), 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 related to the European Commission’s Statement of Objections, discussed below, to preserve the Company’s rights in case of an adverse European Commission decision. 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 our Spanish affiliate, Grupo General Cable Sistemas, and its French subsidiary, Silec. The Statement of Objections alleged that the two affiliates engaged in violations of competition law in the underground power cables businesses for limited periods of time. The allegations related to Grupo General Cable Sistemas claimed that it had participated in a cartel from January 2003 to May 2007, while the allegations related to Silec were for the ten month period following its December 22, 2005 acquisition from SAFRAN by Grupo General Cable Sistemas. Following our formal responses to the Statement of Objections in October 2011 and a hearing in 2012, the European Commission issued a final decision on April 2, 2014. In the decision, the claims of infringement against Grupo General Cable Sistemas were dismissed for lack of evidence of alleged cartel activity. With regard to Silec, the European Commission’s decision imposed a fine of 1.9 million Euros related to the period Silec has been owned by us. This fine was based on participation that allegedly commenced well before Silec was acquired by us. On June 13, 2014, we filed an appeal with the General Court of the European Union challenging the European Commission’s decision as to Silec in Europe based on established precedent. We also continue to pursue our claim for full indemnification for the Silec fine under the terms of the acquisition agreement with SAFRAN executed in 2005. Transformer damage claims In March 2012, we 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. We 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. Our 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, we initiated litigation in Pennsylvania state court seeking a declaration that we are 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. The arbitration was conducted before the ICC Tribunal in April 2015, and the parties filed post-hearing briefs. On March 24, 2016, the ICC Tribunal issued its final order finding the Company liable for $15.7 million in damages plus prejudgment interest of $3.5 million. The Company was fully insured for the $19.2 million award. Payment from the insurers was made in the second quarter of 2016. Brazil tax matters One of our Brazilian subsidiaries is involved in administrative proceedings with State treasury offices regarding whether tax incentives granted to us by one Brazilian state are applicable to goods sold in another Brazilian State. We believe we correctly relied on the tax incentives granted and that we have substantial defenses to their disallowance by the Brazilian State claimant. The total amount of taxes allegedly due for the infractions including potential interest and penalties is up to $8 million. In September 2012, an Administrative Court found that we were not liable for any incentive tax payments claimed by the State treasury office, however this determination was overturned on appeal and has since been further appealed. This appeal remains pending at the Brazilian Courts. Despite the pending appeal, in October 2014, the State issued a summons to recover the approximately $8 million of contested incentives described above, and we are complying with the terms of the State’s summons while continuing to contest the Court’s ruling. We currently estimate our range of reasonably possible loss to be between $0 million and $8 million. Our Brazilian subsidiaries have received notifications of various other claims related to disputed tax credits taken on Federal Tax Offset returns, which are in various phases of litigation. We believe we correctly applied the tax credits taken and that we have substantial defenses to these claims. The total amount of taxes allegedly due for the disputed credits, including potential interest and penalties is up to $12 million. Government and internal investigations We have been reviewing, with the assistance of external counsel, our use and payment of agents in connection with, and certain other transactions involving, our operations in Angola, Thailand, India, China and Egypt (the “Subject Countries”). Our review has focused upon payments and gifts made, offered, contemplated or promised by certain employees in one or more of the Subject Countries, directly and indirectly, and at various times, to employees of public utility companies and/or other officials of state owned entities that raise concerns under the FCPA and possibly under the laws of other jurisdictions. During 2015, we substantially completed our internal review in the Subject Countries and, based on our findings, we increased our outstanding FCPA-related accrual to $28 million in the year ended December 31, 2015. At this time, we are in early stages of discussions with the SEC and DOJ regarding the terms of a potential resolution of the ongoing investigations, and based on these discussions, we believe the amount of total disgorgement of profits, including pre-judgment interest, required to resolve the investigation is in the range of $33 million to $59 million. As a result, we have increased our existing accrual as of July 1, 2016 by $5 million to $33 million, which represents the low-end of the range. The amount accrued solely reflects profits and pre-judgment interest that may be disgorged, and does not include, and we are not able to reasonably estimate, the amount of any possible fines, civil or criminal penalties or other relief, any or all of which could be substantial. The SEC and DOJ inquiries into these matters remain ongoing, and we continue to cooperate with the DOJ and the SEC with respect to these matters. At this time, we are unable to predict the nature of any action that may be taken by the DOJ or SEC or any remedies these agencies may pursue as a result of such actions. The amounts accrued and the additional range of reasonably possible loss solely reflect profits that may be disgorged based on our investigation in the Subject Countries, and do not include, and we are not able to reasonably estimate, the amount of any possible fines, civil or criminal penalties or other relief, any or all of which could be substantial. The SEC and DOJ inquiries into these matters remain ongoing. We continue to cooperate with the DOJ and the SEC with respect to these matters. At this time, we are unable to predict the nature of any action that may be taken by the DOJ or SEC or any remedies these agencies may pursue as a result of such actions. As previously disclosed, we conducted internal investigations, subject to the oversight of the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors and with the assistance of external counsel, principally relating to matters resulting in restatements of a number of our previously issued financial statements. The matters addressed in the investigations included (i) inventory accounting errors addressed in the restatements, including those resulting from inventory theft in Brazil, as well as the timing of internal reporting of the inventory accounting issues to senior corporate management at our headquarters in Highland Heights, Kentucky and (ii) historical revenue recognition accounting practices with regard to “bill and hold” sales in Brazil related to aerial transmission projects, including instances where we determined that the requirements for revenue recognition under GAAP with respect to the bill and hold sales were not met. (“Bill and hold” sales generally are sales meeting specified criteria under GAAP that enable the seller to recognize revenue at the time title to goods and ownership risk is transferred to the customer, even though the seller does not ship the goods until a later time. In typical sales transactions other than those accounted for as bill and hold, title to goods and ownership risk is transferred to the customer at the time of shipment or delivery.) In connection with these matters, among others, our management identified control deficiencies that constituted material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. These material weaknesses resulted in accounting errors that caused us to issue two sets of restated financial statements. In March 2013, principally to correct the inventory accounting errors, we issued restated consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 and for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, and unaudited restated financial statements for interim periods in 2011 and interim periods ended on March 30, 2012 and June 29, 2012. In January 2014, principally to correct errors relating to revenue recognition with respect to the bill and hold sales, we issued restated consolidated financial statements (which also encompassed matters addressed in the earlier restatement) as of December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 and for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009, and unaudited restated financial statements for interim periods in 2011 and 2012 and the interim period ended on March 29, 2013. We voluntarily contacted the SEC to advise it of our initial internal investigation, and we have continued to provide information to the SEC on an ongoing basis, including, among other things, information regarding the matters described above and certain earnings management activities by employees prior to the end of 2012. As we previously disclosed, these earnings management activities (none of which identified to date had a material effect on our consolidated financial statements) were designed to delay the reporting of expenses or other charges, including improper capitalization of costs, misuse of accruals and failure to timely report inventory shortfalls identified through physical inventory counts. The SEC has issued a formal order of investigation. Pursuant to the formal order, the SEC issued subpoenas to us seeking relevant documents and to certain of our current and former employees seeking their testimony. The SEC has requested information regarding, among other things, the above-described Angola matter, matters that were subject to our internal investigations and earnings management activities by employees. We continue to cooperate with the SEC in connection with its investigation. Any determination that our operations or activities are not in compliance with existing laws or regulations could result in the imposition of substantial fines, civil and criminal penalties, and equitable remedies, including disgorgement and injunctive relief. Because the government investigations regarding commission payment practices and our use and payment of agents described above are ongoing, we are unable to predict their duration, scope, results, or consequences. Dispositions of these types of matters can result in modifications to business practices and compliance programs, and in some cases the appointment of a monitor to review future business and practices with the objective of effecting compliance with the FCPA and other applicable laws. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the amount or range of additional possible loss that we may incur above the amount accrued to date in connection with the foregoing matters. Purported class action and derivative litigation Litigation was initiated against us and certain of our current and former directors, executive officers and employees following the restating of our financial statements principally as a result of the matters described above under “Government and internal investigations” relating to our Brazilian business. Two civil complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 21, 2013 and December 4, 2013 by named plaintiffs, on behalf of purported classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded securities, against us, Gregory Kenny, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian Robinson, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. On our motion, the complaints were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the actions were consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that Court on May 20, 2014 by City of Livonia Employees Retirement System, as lead plaintiff on behalf of a purported class of all persons or entities who purchased our securities between November 3, 2010 and October 14, 2013 (the “City of Livonia Complaint”). The City of Livonia Complaint alleged claims under the antifraud and controlling person liability provisions of the Exchange Act, alleging generally, among other assertions, that we employed inadequate internal financial reporting controls that resulted in, among other things, improper revenue recognition, understated cost of sales, overstated operating income, net income and earnings per share, and the failure to detect inventory lost through theft; that we issued materially false financial results that had to be restated on two occasions; and that statements of Messrs. Kenny and Robinson that they had tested and found effective our internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure were false. The City of Livonia Complaint alleged that as a result of the foregoing, our stock price was artificially inflated and the plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with their purchase of our stock. The City of Livonia Complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount; reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and experts fees; and such equitable injunctive or other relief as the Court deems just and proper. On January 27, 2015, the Court dismissed the City of Livonia Complaint, with prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On February 24, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the January 27, 2015 judgment and for leave to file the proposed amended complaint, which the lower Court also denied. On June 9, 2015, plaintiff appealed the lower Court’s decisions to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 24, 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court’s decisions. On June 28, 2016, plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. On July 19, 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. In addition, a derivative complaint was filed on January 7, 2014 in the Campbell County, Kentucky Circuit Court against all but one member of our Board of Directors, including Mr. Kenny, two former directors, Mr. Robinson and two former officers, one of whom is a former executive officer. The derivative complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly failing to ensure that we implemented and maintained adequate internal controls over our accounting and financial reporting functions and by knowingly disseminating to stockholders materially false and misleading statements concerning our financial results and internal controls. The derivative complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, appropriate equitable relief to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees and other costs. On March 5, 2014, the derivative case was placed on inactive status until a motion is filed by a party to reinstate the action to the Court’s active docket. On July 27, 2016, plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal with the Court voluntarily terminating the derivative litigation. We believe the derivative complaint, insofar as it relates to our current and former directors, including Mr. Kenny, and to Mr. Robinson, and the City of Livonia Complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously contest the actions. Other In addition, we are involved in various routine legal proceedings and administrative actions incidental to our business. In the opinion of our management, these routine proceedings and actions should not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters or other similar matters, if unfavorable, may have such adverse effects. In accordance with GAAP, we record a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. To the extent additional information arises or our strategies change, it is possible that our estimate of our probable liability in these matters may change. The General Cable Executive Severance Benefit Plan (“Severance Plan”), effective January 1, 2008, applicable to our U.S. executives holding a position of Executive Vice President or above prior to August 1, 2014, and the 2014 Executive Officer Severance Plan ("2014 Severance Plan"), applicable to the Company’s executive officers holding a position of Executive Vice President or above or the position of Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer or Chief Human Resources Officer and were hired or first promoted into such position after August 1, 2014, each include a change in control provision such that the executives may receive payments or benefits in accordance with the Severance Plan or 2014 Severance Plan, as applicable, 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 July 1, 2016, future minimum rental payments required under non-cancelable lease agreements during the twelve month periods beginning July 1, 2016 through July 2, 2021 and thereafter are $15.3 million, $8.0 million, $6.1 million, $4.5 million and $3.8 million, respectively, and $5.0 million thereafter. As of July 1, 2016, the Company had $27.9 million in letters of credit (including the $25.2 million outstanding on the Company's Revolving Credit Facility), $233.7 million in various performance bonds and $100.4 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.

Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental matters

We are 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.

Our 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. We do not own or operate any of the waste sites with respect to which we have been named as a potentially responsible party by the government. Based on our review and other factors, we believe that costs relating to environmental clean-up at these sites will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

On March 7, 2011, GK Technologies, Inc. (“GK Tech”) was served with a Complaint filed on February 24, 2011, by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (“HACLA”) arising under CERCLA, California statutory law, and common law in the case known as Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles v. PCC Technical Industries, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-01626 FMO (C.D. Cal.). The Housing Authority contends that GK Tech and several other defendants are responsible for environmental contamination at property located at 9901 S. Alameda Street in Los Angeles (the “Site”), which was apparently the location of a steel recycling mill formerly operated by a former subsidiary of GK Tech. The former subsidiary was legally dissolved in September 1993.

GK Tech has asserted various defenses to the claim, including the dissolution of the former subsidiary and the lack of knowledge of the environmental contamination. The Court had previously determined, as a matter of law, that the former subsidiary is one of several potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) liable under CERCLA for costs of remediation of the contamination at the Site.

HACLA began conducting remediation work at the Site in April 2015, with projected costs at the time ranging from $5 million to $13 million. In October 2015, HACLA substantially expanded the scope of the remediation work at the Site and now estimates that the total costs to complete the work are between $21 million and $30 million. HACLA has collected some amounts through prior settlements with parties that owned and/or conducted operations on the Site after March 1979, which amounts we believe would partially offset any possible liability of GK Tech. GK Tech believes that it has very good defenses to HACLA’s successor liability theories but, nevertheless, it is reasonably possible that GK Tech could be held liable for between $0 million and $30 million in this case.

At July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had an accrued liability of approximately $4.6 million and $3.6 million, respectively, for various environmental-related liabilities to the extent costs are known or can be reasonably estimated as a liability. While it is difficult to estimate future environmental-related liabilities accurately, we do not currently anticipate any material adverse effect on our 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.

Asbestos litigation

We have been a defendant in asbestos litigation for the past 28 years. Our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by us. As of July 1, 2016, we were a defendant in approximately 316 cases brought in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In the six months ended July 1, 2016, 37 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the calendar year 2015, 99 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the last 28 years, we have had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product identification. As of July 1, 2016, 50,920 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the six months ended July 1, 2016, 45 asbestos cases were dismissed. As of December 31, 2015, 50,875 cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 316 remaining pending cases, we are aggressively defending these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to whether we manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of our product.

As of July 1, 2016, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 165 cases. In 55 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $692 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In 109 other cases pending in state and federal district courts, plaintiffs seek approximately $440 million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In one case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of $4 million. In addition, in relation to these 165 cases, there are claims of $280 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $4.3 million and $4.1 million, respectively, and as of July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2015, had recovered approximately $0.4 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. The net amount of $3.9 million and $3.7 million, as of July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, represents our best estimate in order to cover resolution of current 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 accrual is relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from the plaintiff's counsel. As of July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2015, aggregate settlement costs were $9.8 million and $9.7 million, respectively. For the six months ended July 1, 2016 and July 3, 2015, settlement costs totaled less than $0.1 million. As of July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2015, aggregate litigation costs were $26.7 million and $26.1 million, respectively. For the six months ended July 1, 2016 and July 3, 2015, litigation costs were $0.6 million and $0.7 million, respectively.

In January 1994, we 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 were responsible for a substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the defense or resolution of this litigation. However, 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 and another became insolvent. As a result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and we have had to bear substantially most of the costs relating to these lawsuits.

European Commission competition matter

As part of the Company’s acquisition of Silec in December 2005, SAFRAN SA (“SAFRAN”), 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 related to the European Commission’s Statement of Objections, discussed below, to preserve the Company’s rights in case of an adverse European Commission decision.

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 our Spanish affiliate, Grupo General Cable Sistemas, and its French subsidiary, Silec. The Statement of Objections alleged that the two affiliates engaged in violations of competition law in the underground power cables businesses for limited periods of time. The allegations related to Grupo General Cable Sistemas claimed that it had participated in a cartel from January 2003 to May 2007, while the allegations related to Silec were for the ten month period following its December 22, 2005 acquisition from SAFRAN by Grupo General Cable Sistemas.

Following our formal responses to the Statement of Objections in October 2011 and a hearing in 2012, the European Commission issued a final decision on April 2, 2014. In the decision, the claims of infringement against Grupo General Cable Sistemas were dismissed for lack of evidence of alleged cartel activity. With regard to Silec, the European Commission’s decision imposed a fine of 1.9 million Euros related to the period Silec has been owned by us. This fine was based on participation that allegedly commenced well before Silec was acquired by us. On June 13, 2014, we filed an appeal with the General Court of the European Union challenging the European Commission’s decision as to Silec in Europe based on established precedent. We also continue to pursue our claim for full indemnification for the Silec fine under the terms of the acquisition agreement with SAFRAN executed in 2005.

Transformer damage claims

In March 2012, we 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. We 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. Our 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, we initiated litigation in Pennsylvania state court seeking a declaration that we are 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. The arbitration was conducted before the ICC Tribunal in April 2015, and the parties filed post-hearing briefs. On March 24, 2016, the ICC Tribunal issued its final order finding the Company liable for $15.7 million in damages plus prejudgment interest of $3.5 million. The Company was fully insured for the $19.2 million award. Payment from the insurers was made in the second quarter of 2016.

Brazil tax matters

One of our Brazilian subsidiaries is involved in administrative proceedings with State treasury offices regarding whether tax incentives granted to us by one Brazilian state are applicable to goods sold in another Brazilian State. We believe we correctly relied on the tax incentives granted and that we have substantial defenses to their disallowance by the Brazilian State claimant. The total amount of taxes allegedly due for the infractions including potential interest and penalties is up to $8 million. In September 2012, an Administrative Court found that we were not liable for any incentive tax payments claimed by the State treasury office, however this determination was overturned on appeal and has since been further appealed. This appeal remains pending at the Brazilian Courts. Despite the pending appeal, in October 2014, the State issued a summons to recover the approximately $8 million of contested incentives described above, and we are complying with the terms of the State’s summons while continuing to contest the Court’s ruling. We currently estimate our range of reasonably possible loss to be between $0 million and $8 million.

Our Brazilian subsidiaries have received notifications of various other claims related to disputed tax credits taken on Federal Tax Offset returns, which are in various phases of litigation. We believe we correctly applied the tax credits taken and that we have substantial defenses to these claims. The total amount of taxes allegedly due for the disputed credits, including potential interest and penalties is up to $12 million.

Government and internal investigations

We have been reviewing, with the assistance of external counsel, our use and payment of agents in connection with, and certain other transactions involving, our operations in Angola, Thailand, India, China and Egypt (the “Subject Countries”). Our review has focused upon payments and gifts made, offered, contemplated or promised by certain employees in one or more of the Subject Countries, directly and indirectly, and at various times, to employees of public utility companies and/or other officials of state owned entities that raise concerns under the FCPA and possibly under the laws of other jurisdictions. During 2015, we substantially completed our internal review in the Subject Countries and, based on our findings, we increased our outstanding FCPA-related accrual to $28 million in the year ended December 31, 2015. At this time, we are in early stages of discussions with the SEC and DOJ regarding the terms of a potential resolution of the ongoing investigations, and based on these discussions, we believe the amount of total disgorgement of profits, including pre-judgment interest, required to resolve the investigation is in the range of $33 million to $59 million. As a result, we have increased our existing accrual as of July 1, 2016 by $5 million to $33 million, which represents the low-end of the range. The amount accrued solely reflects profits and pre-judgment interest that may be disgorged, and does not include, and we are not able to reasonably estimate, the amount of any possible fines, civil or criminal penalties or other relief, any or all of which could be substantial. The SEC and DOJ inquiries into these matters remain ongoing, and we continue to cooperate with the DOJ and the SEC with respect to these matters. At this time, we are unable to predict the nature of any action that may be taken by the DOJ or SEC or any remedies these agencies may pursue as a result of such actions.

The amounts accrued and the additional range of reasonably possible loss solely reflect profits that may be disgorged based on our investigation in the Subject Countries, and do not include, and we are not able to reasonably estimate, the amount of any possible fines, civil or criminal penalties or other relief, any or all of which could be substantial. The SEC and DOJ inquiries into these matters remain ongoing. We continue to cooperate with the DOJ and the SEC with respect to these matters. At this time, we are unable to predict the nature of any action that may be taken by the DOJ or SEC or any remedies these agencies may pursue as a result of such actions.

As previously disclosed, we conducted internal investigations, subject to the oversight of the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors and with the assistance of external counsel, principally relating to matters resulting in restatements of a number of our previously issued financial statements. The matters addressed in the investigations included (i) inventory accounting errors addressed in the restatements, including those resulting from inventory theft in Brazil, as well as the timing of internal reporting of the inventory accounting issues to senior corporate management at our headquarters in Highland Heights, Kentucky and (ii) historical revenue recognition accounting practices with regard to “bill and hold” sales in Brazil related to aerial transmission projects, including instances where we determined that the requirements for revenue recognition under GAAP with respect to the bill and hold sales were not met. (“Bill and hold” sales generally are sales meeting specified criteria under GAAP that enable the seller to recognize revenue at the time title to goods and ownership risk is transferred to the customer, even though the seller does not ship the goods until a later time. In typical sales transactions other than those accounted for as bill and hold, title to goods and ownership risk is transferred to the customer at the time of shipment or delivery.) In connection with these matters, among others, our management identified control deficiencies that constituted material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. These material weaknesses resulted in accounting errors that caused us to issue two sets of restated financial statements. In March 2013, principally to correct the inventory accounting errors, we issued restated consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 and for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, and unaudited restated financial statements for interim periods in 2011 and interim periods ended on March 30, 2012 and June 29, 2012. In January 2014, principally to correct errors relating to revenue recognition with respect to the bill and hold sales, we issued restated consolidated financial statements (which also encompassed matters addressed in the earlier restatement) as of December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 and for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009, and unaudited restated financial statements for interim periods in 2011 and 2012 and the interim period ended on March 29, 2013.

We voluntarily contacted the SEC to advise it of our initial internal investigation, and we have continued to provide information to the SEC on an ongoing basis, including, among other things, information regarding the matters described above and certain earnings management activities by employees prior to the end of 2012. As we previously disclosed, these earnings management activities (none of which identified to date had a material effect on our consolidated financial statements) were designed to delay the reporting of expenses or other charges, including improper capitalization of costs, misuse of accruals and failure to timely report inventory shortfalls identified through physical inventory counts. The SEC has issued a formal order of investigation. Pursuant to the formal order, the SEC issued subpoenas to us seeking relevant documents and to certain of our current and former employees seeking their testimony. The SEC has requested information regarding, among other things, the above-described Angola matter, matters that were subject to our internal investigations and earnings management activities by employees. We continue to cooperate with the SEC in connection with its investigation.

Any determination that our operations or activities are not in compliance with existing laws or regulations could result in the imposition of substantial fines, civil and criminal penalties, and equitable remedies, including disgorgement and injunctive relief. Because the government investigations regarding commission payment practices and our use and payment of agents described above are ongoing, we are unable to predict their duration, scope, results, or consequences. Dispositions of these types of matters can result in modifications to business practices and compliance programs, and in some cases the appointment of a monitor to review future business and practices with the objective of effecting compliance with the FCPA and other applicable laws. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the amount or range of additional possible loss that we may incur above the amount accrued to date in connection with the foregoing matters.

Purported class action and derivative litigation

Litigation was initiated against us and certain of our current and former directors, executive officers and employees following the restating of our financial statements principally as a result of the matters described above under “Government and internal investigations” relating to our Brazilian business.

Two civil complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 21, 2013 and December 4, 2013 by named plaintiffs, on behalf of purported classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded securities, against us, Gregory Kenny, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian Robinson, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. On our motion, the complaints were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the actions were consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that Court on May 20, 2014 by City of Livonia Employees Retirement System, as lead plaintiff on behalf of a purported class of all persons or entities who purchased our securities between November 3, 2010 and October 14, 2013 (the “City of Livonia Complaint”). The City of Livonia Complaint alleged claims under the antifraud and controlling person liability provisions of the Exchange Act, alleging generally, among other assertions, that we employed inadequate internal financial reporting controls that resulted in, among other things, improper revenue recognition, understated cost of sales, overstated operating income, net income and earnings per share, and the failure to detect inventory lost through theft; that we issued materially false financial results that had to be restated on two occasions; and that statements of Messrs. Kenny and Robinson that they had tested and found effective our internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure were false. The City of Livonia Complaint alleged that as a result of the foregoing, our stock price was artificially inflated and the plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with their purchase of our stock. The City of Livonia Complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount; reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and experts fees; and such equitable injunctive or other relief as the Court deems just and proper. On January 27, 2015, the Court dismissed the City of Livonia Complaint, with prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On February 24, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the January 27, 2015 judgment and for leave to file the proposed amended complaint, which the lower Court also denied. On June 9, 2015, plaintiff appealed the lower Court’s decisions to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 24, 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court’s decisions. On June 28, 2016, plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. On July 19, 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc.

In addition, a derivative complaint was filed on January 7, 2014 in the Campbell County, Kentucky Circuit Court against all but one member of our Board of Directors, including Mr. Kenny, two former directors, Mr. Robinson and two former officers, one of whom is a former executive officer. The derivative complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly failing to ensure that we implemented and maintained adequate internal controls over our accounting and financial reporting functions and by knowingly disseminating to stockholders materially false and misleading statements concerning our financial results and internal controls. The derivative complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, appropriate equitable relief to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees and other costs. On March 5, 2014, the derivative case was placed on inactive status until a motion is filed by a party to reinstate the action to the Court’s active docket. On July 27, 2016, plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal with the Court voluntarily terminating the derivative litigation.

We believe the derivative complaint, insofar as it relates to our current and former directors, including Mr. Kenny, and to Mr. Robinson, and the City of Livonia Complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously contest the actions.

Other

In addition, we are involved in various routine legal proceedings and administrative actions incidental to our business. In the opinion of our management, these routine proceedings and actions should not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters or other similar matters, if unfavorable, may have such adverse effects.

In accordance with GAAP, we record a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. To the extent additional information arises or our strategies change, it is possible that our estimate of our probable liability in these matters may change.

The General Cable Executive Severance Benefit Plan (“Severance Plan”), effective January 1, 2008, applicable to our U.S. executives holding a position of Executive Vice President or above prior to August 1, 2014, and the 2014 Executive Officer Severance Plan ("2014 Severance Plan"), applicable to the Company’s executive officers holding a position of Executive Vice President or above or the position of Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer or Chief Human Resources Officer and were hired or first promoted into such position after August 1, 2014, each include a change in control provision such that the executives may receive payments or benefits in accordance with the Severance Plan or 2014 Severance Plan, as applicable, 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 July 1, 2016, future minimum rental payments required under non-cancelable lease agreements during the twelve month periods beginning July 1, 2016 through July 2, 2021 and thereafter are $15.3 million, $8.0 million, $6.1 million, $4.5 million and $3.8 million, respectively, and $5.0 million thereafter.

As of July 1, 2016, the Company had $27.9 million in letters of credit (including the $25.2 million outstanding on the Company's Revolving Credit Facility), $233.7 million in various performance bonds and $100.4 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.