Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 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 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. In January 2017, we, the other defendants and HACLA reached an agreement to settle the actions for $12 million (the “Settlement Payment”), with GK Tech responsible for a portion of such Settlement Payment in an immaterial amount, which has been accrued for in the quarter ended December 31, 2016. We anticipate paying GK Tech’s portion of the Settlement Payment in the first quarter of 2017. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, we had a total accrued liability of approximately $5.6 million and $3.6 million, respectively, for various environmental-related liabilities to the extent costs are known and 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 December 31, 2016, we were a defendant in approximately 318 cases brought in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In the calendar year 2016, 84 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 December 31, 2016, 50,958 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the calendar year 2016, 83 asbestos cases were dismissed. As of December 31, 2015, 50,875 cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 318 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 December 31, 2016, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 164 cases. In 54 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $652 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In 108 other cases pending in state and federal district courts, plaintiffs seek approximately $430 million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In two cases, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of $20 million. In addition, in relation to these 164 cases, there are claims of $271 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $4.4 million and $4.1 million, respectively, and as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, had recovered approximately $0.4 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. The net amount of $4.0 million and $3.7 million, as of December 31, 2016 and 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 December 31, 2016 and 2015, aggregate settlement costs were $9.8 million and $9.7 million, respectively. In calendar years 2016, 2015 and 2014, the settlement costs totaled $0.1 million, $0.2 million and $0.6 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, aggregate litigation costs were $27.1 million and $26.1 million, respectively. In calendar years 2016, 2015 and 2014, the costs of administering and litigating asbestos claims totaled $1.0 million, $1.4 million and $1.8 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 reasonably possible loss for the disputed credits, including potential interest and penalties is up to $17 million. Resolution of SEC and DOJ investigations As previously disclosed, we reviewed, 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 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 raised concerns under the FCPA and possibly under the laws of other jurisdictions. During 2015, we substantially completed our internal review in the Subject Countries. As previously disclosed, we also 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. 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 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 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. As previously disclosed, we voluntarily contacted the SEC and the DOJ to advise both agencies of our internal investigations. We cooperated with investigations of these matters by the SEC and the DOJ and made significant compliance enhancements. In December 2016 we entered into agreements with the SEC and the DOJ that bring to a conclusion those agencies’ respective investigations relating to the FCPA and the SEC’s separate accounting investigation related to our financial restatements impacting fiscal years 2012 and prior. Pursuant to those agreements, we will pay fines, disgorgement and pre-judgment interest to the SEC and DOJ in the total amount of $82.3 million. Our resolution with the SEC encompasses both the FCPA issues and the separate accounting and disclosure issues that were the subject of our prior restatements. We will disgorge profits of approximately $51.2 million and pay pre-judgment interest of approximately $4.1 million in connection with the FCPA matter, and pay a civil penalty in connection with the restatement-related matters of $6.5 million. As part of the DOJ resolution for the FCPA matter, we will pay a penalty of approximately $20.5 million. We have entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ which will be in effect for three years. No criminal charges will be brought against us provided we comply with our obligations under the agreement. Neither the SEC nor the DOJ is requiring an independent compliance monitor. Instead, we agreed to annual self-reporting for a period of three years. The DOJ penalty of $20.5 million was paid in a single payment in January 2017. We paid $12.4 million to the SEC in January 2017, and will pay approximately $18.5 million to the SEC within 180 days of the date of the resolution and will make a final payment of approximately $30.9 million to the SEC within 360 days of the date of the resolution. As of the third quarter of 2016, we had accrued $33 million for the FCPA-related investigations. As a result of the resolutions with the DOJ and the SEC, we recorded a charge of approximately $49.3 million in the SG&A expenses caption of the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) in the fourth quarter of 2016. Taking this charge into account, we have recognized all costs associated with the resolution of these matters with the DOJ and SEC. 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 “Resolution of SEC and DOJ 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 former 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. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the lower Court’s decisions to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower Court’s decisions dismissing the case. The period of time available to plaintiff to further appeal the Sixth Circuit’s decision has now expired, and the case is closed. 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. FCPA-related litigation matters A civil complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 5, 2017, 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 former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (the “Doshi Complaint”). The parties have stipulated to the transfer of the matter to the Eastern District of Kentucky and await court approval of that agreement. The Doshi Complaint alleges claims under the antifraud and controlling person liability provisions of the Exchange Act, alleging generally, among other assertions, that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements in various quarterly and annual reports filed with the SEC between February 2012 and February 2016. Plaintiffs claim that the Corporation failed to disclose during that period that it had paid bribes in violation of the FCPA, failed to disclose that a portion of its profits were subject to disgorgement, and failed to disclose that when this conduct was discovered it would subject the Corporation to significant monetary penalties. The Doshi Complaint alleges 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 Doshi Complaint seeks 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. We have not yet responded to the Complaint. At this early stage in the litigation, we cannot determine the likelihood of nor can we reasonably estimate the range of any possible loss. 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 December 31, 2016, future minimum rental payments required under non-cancelable lease agreements during the twelve month periods beginning December 31, 2016 through December 31, 2021 and thereafter are $15.0 million, $10.4 million, $8.7 million, $7.6 million and $5.0 million, respectively, and $11.5 million thereafter. Rental expense recorded in operating income (loss) was $23.9 million, $41.6 million and $45.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, the Company had $23.6 million in letters of credit, $268.1 million in various performance bonds and $72.5 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 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.

In January 2017, we, the other defendants and HACLA reached an agreement to settle the actions for $12 million (the “Settlement Payment”), with GK Tech responsible for a portion of such Settlement Payment in an immaterial amount, which has been accrued for in the quarter ended December 31, 2016. We anticipate paying GK Tech’s portion of the Settlement Payment in the first quarter of 2017.

At December 31, 2016 and 2015, we had a total accrued liability of approximately $5.6 million and $3.6 million, respectively, for various environmental-related liabilities to the extent costs are known and 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 December 31, 2016, we were a defendant in approximately 318 cases brought in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In the calendar year 2016, 84 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 December 31, 2016, 50,958 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the calendar year 2016, 83 asbestos cases were dismissed. As of December 31, 2015, 50,875 cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 318 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 December 31, 2016, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 164 cases. In 54 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $652 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In 108 other cases pending in state and federal district courts, plaintiffs seek approximately $430 million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In two cases, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of $20 million. In addition, in relation to these 164 cases, there are claims of $271 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $4.4 million and $4.1 million, respectively, and as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, had recovered approximately $0.4 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. The net amount of $4.0 million and $3.7 million, as of December 31, 2016 and 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 December 31, 2016 and 2015, aggregate settlement costs were $9.8 million and $9.7 million, respectively. In calendar years 2016, 2015 and 2014, the settlement costs totaled $0.1 million, $0.2 million and $0.6 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, aggregate litigation costs were $27.1 million and $26.1 million, respectively. In calendar years 2016, 2015 and 2014, the costs of administering and litigating asbestos claims totaled $1.0 million, $1.4 million and $1.8 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 reasonably possible loss for the disputed credits, including potential interest and penalties is up to $17 million.

Resolution of SEC and DOJ investigations

As previously disclosed, we reviewed, 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 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 raised concerns under the FCPA and possibly under the laws of other jurisdictions. During 2015, we substantially completed our internal review in the Subject Countries.

As previously disclosed, we also 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. 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 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 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.

As previously disclosed, we voluntarily contacted the SEC and the DOJ to advise both agencies of our internal investigations. We cooperated with investigations of these matters by the SEC and the DOJ and made significant compliance enhancements.

In December 2016 we entered into agreements with the SEC and the DOJ that bring to a conclusion those agencies’ respective investigations relating to the FCPA and the SEC’s separate accounting investigation related to our financial restatements impacting fiscal years 2012 and prior. Pursuant to those agreements, we will pay fines, disgorgement and pre-judgment interest to the SEC and DOJ in the total amount of $82.3 million.

Our resolution with the SEC encompasses both the FCPA issues and the separate accounting and disclosure issues that were the subject of our prior restatements. We will disgorge profits of approximately $51.2 million and pay pre-judgment interest of approximately $4.1 million in connection with the FCPA matter, and pay a civil penalty in connection with the restatement-related matters of $6.5 million.

As part of the DOJ resolution for the FCPA matter, we will pay a penalty of approximately $20.5 million. We have entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ which will be in effect for three years. No criminal charges will be brought against us provided we comply with our obligations under the agreement. Neither the SEC nor the DOJ is requiring an independent compliance monitor. Instead, we agreed to annual self-reporting for a period of three years.

The DOJ penalty of $20.5 million was paid in a single payment in January 2017. We paid $12.4 million to the SEC in January 2017, and will pay approximately $18.5 million to the SEC within 180 days of the date of the resolution and will make a final payment of approximately $30.9 million to the SEC within 360 days of the date of the resolution. As of the third quarter of 2016, we had accrued $33 million for the FCPA-related investigations. As a result of the resolutions with the DOJ and the SEC, we recorded a charge of approximately $49.3 million in the SG&A expenses caption of the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) in the fourth quarter of 2016. Taking this charge into account, we have recognized all costs associated with the resolution of these matters with the DOJ and SEC.

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 “Resolution of SEC and DOJ 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 former 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. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the lower Court’s decisions to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower Court’s decisions dismissing the case. The period of time available to plaintiff to further appeal the Sixth Circuit’s decision has now expired, and the case is closed.

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.

FCPA-related litigation matters

A civil complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 5, 2017, 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 former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (the “Doshi Complaint”). The parties have stipulated to the transfer of the matter to the Eastern District of Kentucky and await court approval of that agreement. The Doshi Complaint alleges claims under the antifraud and controlling person liability provisions of the Exchange Act, alleging generally, among other assertions, that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements in various quarterly and annual reports filed with the SEC between February 2012 and February 2016. Plaintiffs claim that the Corporation failed to disclose during that period that it had paid bribes in violation of the FCPA, failed to disclose that a portion of its profits were subject to disgorgement, and failed to disclose that when this conduct was discovered it would subject the Corporation to significant monetary penalties. The Doshi Complaint alleges 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 Doshi Complaint seeks 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. We have not yet responded to the Complaint. At this early stage in the litigation, we cannot determine the likelihood of nor can we reasonably estimate the range of any possible loss.

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 December 31, 2016, future minimum rental payments required under non-cancelable lease agreements during the twelve month periods beginning December 31, 2016 through December 31, 2021 and thereafter are $15.0 million, $10.4 million, $8.7 million, $7.6 million and $5.0 million, respectively, and $11.5 million thereafter. Rental expense recorded in operating income (loss) was $23.9 million, $41.6 million and $45.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

As of December 31, 2016, the Company had $23.6 million in letters of credit, $268.1 million in various performance bonds and $72.5 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.