Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 30, 2018
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. At March 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, we had an accrued liability of approximately $4.7 million 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 30 years. Our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by us. As of March 30, 2018, we were a defendant in approximately 238 cases brought in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In the three fiscal months ended March 30, 2018, 16 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the calendar year 2017, 63 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the last 30 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 March 30, 2018, 51,094 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the three fiscal months ended March 30, 2018, 25 asbestos cases were dismissed. As of December 31, 2017, 51,069 cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 238 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 March 30, 2018, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 188 cases. In 106 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $93 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In 82 other cases pending in state and federal district courts, plaintiffs seek approximately $354 million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In addition, in relation to these 188 cases, there are claims of $255 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of March 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $1.0 million and $1.2 million, respectively, and as of March 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, had recovered approximately $0.1 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. The net amount of $0.9 million and $1.1 million, as of March 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, 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 March 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, aggregate settlement costs were $10.6 million and $10.5 million, respectively. For the three fiscal months ended March 30, 2018 and March 31, 2017, settlement costs totaled $0.1 million. As of March 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, aggregate litigation costs were $29.5 million and $29.2 million, respectively. For the three fiscal months ended March 30, 2018 and March 31, 2017, the costs of administering and litigating asbestos claims totaled $0.3 million. 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. Product liability litigation - Labrador-Island Link Limited Partnership, as represented by its general partner, Labrador-Island Link General Partner Corporation v. General Cable Company Ltd. On March 13, 2018, litigation was initiated against our Canadian subsidiary, General Cable Company Ltd. (“GCC Ltd.”) in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. The Plaintiff alleges that it was injured as a result of allegedly defective cable supplied by GCC Ltd. and/or allegedly defectively designed by a predecessor entity. Plaintiff seeks damages of approximately CDN$57.5 million. At this time, we cannot determine the likelihood of, nor can we reasonably estimate the range of, any possible loss. 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. Brazil tax matters A Brazilian subsidiary 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 subsidiary has 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 $22 million. Resolution of SEC and DOJ investigations As previously disclosed, in December 2016, we entered into agreements with the SEC and the DOJ to resolve 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 paid fines, disgorgement and pre-judgment interest to the SEC and DOJ in the total amount of $82.3 million. Specifically, we paid $20.5 million to the DOJ in January 2017 and $12.4 million, $18.5 million and $30.9 million to the SEC in January 2017, June 2017 and December 2017, respectively. 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 stipulated to the transfer of the matter to the Eastern District of Kentucky, which was approved. The Doshi Complaint alleged 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 claimed 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 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 Doshi Complaint further 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. As required under the Exchange Act, motions for appointment as lead plaintiff were filed on March 6, 2017, by three movants, including named plaintiff Doshi. On November 7, 2017, the Court issued an opinion appointing a different movant, the Long Trust Group, as lead plaintiff. Following appointment of lead plaintiff, the parties submitted a stipulated agreement with the Court which included a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint and renaming the action In Re General Cable Corporation Securities Litigation (Civil Action No. 2:17-025-WOB). Based on the stipulated schedule, lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on January 19, 2018 that asserts the same claims and names the same defendants as the Doshi Complaint. We filed a Motion to Dismiss in the first quarter of 2018, which Motion is currently pending. At this time, we cannot determine the likelihood of, nor can we reasonably estimate the range of, any possible loss. Purported class action litigation - Stanfield v. General Cable Corp. and Rosenblatt v. General Cable Corp. On January 2, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed an action against the Company and the members of the Company’s board of directors on behalf of a putative class of stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Stanfield v. General Cable Corp., No. 1:18-cv-00006-UNA (D. Del.), and on January 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a substantively similar action against the Company, Parent, Merger Sub and the members of the Company’s board of directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, captioned Rosenblatt v. General Cable Corp., No. 2:18-cv-00010-WOB-CJS (E.D. Ky.), in each case seeking, among other things, to enjoin the completion of the Merger. Both of these cases have been dismissed. Purported class action litigation - Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 On March 15, 2017, litigation was initiated against us and certain of our current and former directors, executive officers and employees by a former employee on behalf of a purported class of employees who invested in the common stock of General Cable through our 401(k) plan. The Plaintiff alleges that we should have not retained the General Cable stock fund as an investment option in our 401(k) plan during the period 2003-2016, when they claim the price of the Company stock was artificially inflated. The suit alleges various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. At this time, 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 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, includes a change in control provision such that the executives may receive payments or benefits in accordance with the 2014 Severance Plan to the extent that both a change of control and a triggering event, each as defined in the 2014 Severance Plan, occur. Unless there are circumstances of ineligibility, as defined, the Company must provide payments and benefits upon both a change in control and a triggering event. The Company has entered into various operating lease agreements related principally to certain administrative, manufacturing and distribution facilities and transportation equipment. At March 30, 2018, future minimum rental payments required under non-cancelable lease agreements during the twelve month periods beginning March 30, 2018 through March 31, 2023 and thereafter are $15.9 million, $12.8 million, $10.0 million, $7.1 million and $4.8 million, respectively, and $9.3 million thereafter. As of March 30, 2018, the Company had $41.7 million in letters of credit, $169.7 million in various performance bonds and $128.4 million in other guarantees outstanding. 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, 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.

At March 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, we had an accrued liability of approximately $4.7 million 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 30 years. Our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by us. As of March 30, 2018, we were a defendant in approximately 238 cases brought in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In the three fiscal months ended March 30, 2018, 16 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the calendar year 2017, 63 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the last 30 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 March 30, 2018, 51,094 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the three fiscal months ended March 30, 2018, 25 asbestos cases were dismissed. As of December 31, 2017, 51,069 cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 238 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 March 30, 2018, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 188 cases. In 106 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $93 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In 82 other cases pending in state and federal district courts, plaintiffs seek approximately $354 million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In addition, in relation to these 188 cases, there are claims of $255 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of March 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $1.0 million and $1.2 million, respectively, and as of March 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, had recovered approximately $0.1 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. The net amount of $0.9 million and $1.1 million, as of March 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, 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 March 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, aggregate settlement costs were $10.6 million and $10.5 million, respectively. For the three fiscal months ended March 30, 2018 and March 31, 2017, settlement costs totaled $0.1 million. As of March 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, aggregate litigation costs were $29.5 million and $29.2 million, respectively. For the three fiscal months ended March 30, 2018 and March 31, 2017, the costs of administering and litigating asbestos claims totaled $0.3 million.

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.

Product liability litigation - Labrador-Island Link Limited Partnership, as represented by its general partner, Labrador-Island Link General Partner Corporation v. General Cable Company Ltd.

On March 13, 2018, litigation was initiated against our Canadian subsidiary, General Cable Company Ltd. (“GCC Ltd.”) in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. The Plaintiff alleges that it was injured as a result of allegedly defective cable supplied by GCC Ltd. and/or allegedly defectively designed by a predecessor entity. Plaintiff seeks damages of approximately CDN$57.5 million. At this time, we cannot determine the likelihood of, nor can we reasonably estimate the range of, any possible loss.

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.

Brazil tax matters

A Brazilian subsidiary 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 subsidiary has 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 $22 million.

Resolution of SEC and DOJ investigations

As previously disclosed, in December 2016, we entered into agreements with the SEC and the DOJ to resolve 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 paid fines, disgorgement and pre-judgment interest to the SEC and DOJ in the total amount of $82.3 million. Specifically, we paid $20.5 million to the DOJ in January 2017 and $12.4 million, $18.5 million and $30.9 million to the SEC in January 2017, June 2017 and December 2017, respectively.

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 stipulated to the transfer of the matter to the Eastern District of Kentucky, which was approved. The Doshi Complaint alleged 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 claimed 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 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 Doshi Complaint further 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. As required under the Exchange Act, motions for appointment as lead plaintiff were filed on March 6, 2017, by three movants, including named plaintiff Doshi. On November 7, 2017, the Court issued an opinion appointing a different movant, the Long Trust Group, as lead plaintiff. Following appointment of lead plaintiff, the parties submitted a stipulated agreement with the Court which included a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint and renaming the action In Re General Cable Corporation Securities Litigation (Civil Action No. 2:17-025-WOB). Based on the stipulated schedule, lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on January 19, 2018 that asserts the same claims and names the same defendants as the Doshi Complaint. We filed a Motion to Dismiss in the first quarter of 2018, which Motion is currently pending. At this time, we cannot determine the likelihood of, nor can we reasonably estimate the range of, any possible loss.

Purported class action litigation - Stanfield v. General Cable Corp. and Rosenblatt v. General Cable Corp.

On January 2, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed an action against the Company and the members of the Company’s board of directors on behalf of a putative class of stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Stanfield v. General Cable Corp., No. 1:18-cv-00006-UNA (D. Del.), and on January 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a substantively similar action against the Company, Parent, Merger Sub and the members of the Company’s board of directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, captioned Rosenblatt v. General Cable Corp., No. 2:18-cv-00010-WOB-CJS (E.D. Ky.), in each case seeking, among other things, to enjoin the completion of the Merger. Both of these cases have been dismissed.

Purported class action litigation - Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

On March 15, 2017, litigation was initiated against us and certain of our current and former directors, executive officers and employees by a former employee on behalf of a purported class of employees who invested in the common stock of General Cable through our 401(k) plan. The Plaintiff alleges that we should have not retained the General Cable stock fund as an investment option in our 401(k) plan during the period 2003-2016, when they claim the price of the Company stock was artificially inflated. The suit alleges various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. At this time, 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 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, includes a change in control provision such that the executives may receive payments or benefits in accordance with the 2014 Severance Plan to the extent that both a change of control and a triggering event, each as defined in the 2014 Severance Plan, occur. Unless there are circumstances of ineligibility, as defined, the Company must provide payments and benefits upon both a change in control and a triggering event.

The Company has entered into various operating lease agreements related principally to certain administrative, manufacturing and distribution facilities and transportation equipment. At March 30, 2018, future minimum rental payments required under non-cancelable lease agreements during the twelve month periods beginning March 30, 2018 through March 31, 2023 and thereafter are $15.9 million, $12.8 million, $10.0 million, $7.1 million and $4.8 million, respectively, and $9.3 million thereafter.

As of March 30, 2018, the Company had $41.7 million in letters of credit, $169.7 million in various performance bonds and $128.4 million in other guarantees outstanding. 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, 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.