Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 29, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies Environmental The Company is subject to environmental standards imposed by federal, state, local, and foreign environmental laws and regulations. For all properties, the Company has provided and charged to expense $3.1 million in 2012, $0.4 million in 2011, and $5.4 million in 2010 for pending environmental matters. Environmental costs related to non-operating properties are classified as a component of other income (expense), net and costs related to operating properties are classified as cost of goods sold. Environmental reserves totaled $24.6 million at December 29, 2012 and $22.9 million at December 31, 2011. As of December 29, 2012, the Company expects to spend on existing environmental matters $1.9 million in 2013, $0.9 million in 2014, $0.8 million in 2015, $0.9 million in 2016, $0.9 million in 2017, and $9.7 million thereafter. The timing of a potential payment for a $9.5 million settlement offer has not yet been determined. Non-operating Properties Southeast Kansas Sites By letter dated October 10, 2006, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) advised the Company that environmental contamination has been identified at a former smelter site in southeast Kansas. KDHE asserts that the Company is a corporate successor to an entity that is alleged to have owned and operated the smelter from 1915 to 1918. The Company has since been advised of a possible connection between that same entity and two other former smelter sites in Kansas. KDHE has requested that the Company and other potentially responsible parties (PRPs) negotiate a consent order with KDHE to address contamination at these sites. The Company believes it is not liable for the contamination but as an alternative to litigation, the Company has entered into settlement negotiations with one of the other PRPs. The negotiations are ongoing. In 2008, the Company established a reserve of $9.5 million for this matter. Due to the ongoing nature of negotiations, the timing of potential payment has not yet been determined. The Company has agreed to share the costs of a preliminary site assessment at one of the former smelter sites with two other PRPs, signed an agreement, and agreed on a work plan with KDHE by which the PRPs would study the East La Harpe site without conceding liability. The Company also paid $10 thousand toward KDHE's past costs and received a release for any further claims for past costs at the site. Discussions with KDHE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other PRPs about the other two smelter sites continue. Shasta Area Mine Sites Mining Remedial Recovery Company (MRRC), a wholly owned subsidiary, owns certain inactive mines in Shasta County, California. MRRC has continued a program, begun in the late 1980's, of sealing mine portals with concrete plugs in mine adits, which were discharging water. The sealing program has achieved significant reductions in the metal load in discharges from these adits; however, additional reductions are required pursuant to an order issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (QCB). In response to a 1996 Order issued by the QCB, MRRC completed a feasibility study in 1997 describing measures designed to mitigate the effects of acid rock drainage. In December 1998, the QCB modified the 1996 order extending MRRC's time to comply with water quality standards. In September 2002, the QCB adopted a new order requiring MRRC to adopt Best Management Practices (BMP) to control discharges of acid mine drainage. That order extended the time to comply with water quality standards until September 2007. During that time, implementation of BMP further reduced impacts of acid rock drainage; however, full compliance has not been achieved. The QCB is presently renewing MRRC's discharge permit and will concurrently issue a new order. It is expected that the new permit will include an order requiring continued implementation of BMP through 2015 to address residual discharges of acid rock drainage. At this site, MRRC spent approximately $1.7 million from 2010 through 2012 and estimates that it will spend between approximately $8.4 million and $12.4 million over the next 20 years. Lead Refinery Site U.S.S. Lead Refinery, Inc. (Lead Refinery), a non-operating wholly owned subsidiary of MRRC, has conducted corrective action and interim remedial activities and studies (collectively, Site Activities) at Lead Refinery's East Chicago, Indiana site pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Site Activities, which began in December 1996, have been substantially concluded. Lead Refinery is required to perform monitoring and maintenance activities with respect to Site Activities pursuant to a post-closure permit issued by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) effective as of January 22, 2008. Lead Refinery spent approximately $0.1 million annually in 2012, 2011 and 2010 with respect to this site. Approximate costs to comply with the post-closure permit, including associated general and administrative costs, are between $2.4 million and $3.6 million over the next 20 years. On April 9, 2009, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the EPA added the Lead Refinery site, and properties adjacent to the Lead Refinery site, to the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is a list of priority sites where the EPA has determined that there has been a release or threatened release of hazardous substances that warrant investigation and, if appropriate, remedial action. The NPL does not assign liability to any party including the owner or operator of a property placed on the NPL. The placement of a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that remedial action must be taken. On July 17, 2009, Lead Refinery received a written notice from the EPA that the agency is of the view that Lead Refinery may be a PRP under CERCLA in connection with the release or threaten of release of hazardous substances including lead into properties located adjacent to the Lead Refinery site. There are at least two other PRPs. PRPs under CERCLA include current and former owners and operators of a site, persons who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at a site, or persons who accepted hazardous substances for transport to a site. In November 2012, the EPA adopted a remedy in connection with properties located adjacent to the Lead Refinery site. The EPA has estimated that the cost to implement the November 2012 remedy will be $28.9 million. The Company monitors EPA releases and periodically communicates with the EPA to inquire of the status of the investigation and cleanup of the Lead Refinery site. As of December 29, 2012, the EPA has not conducted an investigation of the Lead Refinery site, proposed remedies for the Lead Refinery site, or informed Lead Refinery that it is a PRP at the Lead Refinery site. Until the extent of remedial action is determined for the Lead Refinery site, the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of a material adverse outcome or the amount or range of a potential loss with respect to placement of the Lead Refinery site and adjacent properties on the NPL. Lead Refinery lacks the financial resources needed to undertake any investigations or remedial action that may be required by the EPA pursuant to CERCLA. Operating Properties Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc. In 1999, Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc. (MCTP), a wholly owned subsidiary, commenced a cleanup and remediation of soil and groundwater at its Wynne, Arkansas plant. MCTP is currently removing trichloroethylene, a cleaning solvent formerly used by MCTP, from the soil and groundwater. On August 30, 2000, MCTP received approval of its Final Comprehensive Investigation Report and Storm Water Drainage Investigation Report addressing the treatment of soils and groundwater from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The Company established a reserve for this project in connection with the acquisition of MCTP in 1998. Effective November 17, 2008, MCTP entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order by Consent to submit a Supplemental Investigation Work Plan (SIWP) and subsequent Final Remediation Work Plan for the site. By letter dated January 20, 2010, ADEQ approved the SIWP as submitted, with changes acceptable to the Company. On December 16, 2011, MCTP entered into an amended Administrative Order by Consent to prepare and implement a revised Remediation Work Plan regarding final remediation for the Site. Costs to implement the work plans, including associated general and administrative costs, are approximately $2.6 million over the next ten years. Belding, Michigan Lead Matters In October 2010, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) conducted testing of lead levels in soils on properties upwind and downwind of the Belding, Michigan facility of Extruded Metals, Inc. (Extruded), a subsidiary of the Company. Results of that testing showed exceedances of the Michigan generic residential direct contact cleanup criteria for lead on a number of the downwind properties. Extruded has investigated the extent of this condition and performed remediation to the extent required by environmental laws and in accordance with a plan approved by the MDEQ in April 2011. In January 2012, Extruded submitted a final Certification Report to the MDEQ documenting its completion of that remediation. The Company provided $0.4 million in 2010 for this matter, and is pursuing potential remedies from the previous owner. The Company does not expect additional material losses associated with these environmental matters. In November 2010, Extruded received a request for information under Section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act from the EPA. The focus of the EPA's information request was the Extruded facility's compliance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources, 40 C.F.R. § 63.11462 (Subpart TTTTTT). Extruded responded to the information request and advised the EPA of its position that it was not subject to regulation under Subpart TTTTTT. The state requested that Extruded request an applicability determination from the EPA. On March 11, 2011, Mueller Brass Co. (MBCo), a subsidiary of the Company, submitted a request for an applicability determination to Region V of the EPA. On or about October 24, 2012, MBCo was notified that based on the process description provided in its letter, EPA agreed that it is not an ingot making facility and, therefore is not subject to Subpart TTTTTT. This determination relieves the Company of future compliance requirements as well as any risk of civil penalties. The estimates contained in the environmental reserves are based on assumptions that are highly subjective. Many of the remedial activities performed by the Company are pursuant to performance-based obligations imposed by various regulatory bodies in which certain standards regarding levels of contaminants must be met. The most subjective assumption that affects the estimates at these sites is the assumed length of time to comply with the remedial requirements set by the regulatory authorities. This assumption is subject to change based on the regulatory environment, unanticipated delays and events that could limit access to these sites, unforeseen negative sampling results, and other factors. Changes in any of these factors could have a material impact on future environmental expense. United States Department of Commerce Antidumping Review On December 24, 2008, the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico to determine the final antidumping duties owed on U.S. imports during the period November 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008, by certain subsidiaries of the Company. On April 19, 2010, the DOC published the final results of this review and assigned Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mueller Comercial) an antidumping duty rate of 48.3 percent. The Company has appealed the final determination to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). On December 16, 2011, the CIT issued a decision to remand the final results back to DOC to reconsider its decision. The Department issued its remand determination on May 14, 2012. In that determination, the DOC again assigned Mueller Comercial an antidumping duty rate of 48.3 percent. On June 13, 2012, Mueller challenged the DOC's remand determination. The Company anticipates that certain of its subsidiaries will incur antidumping duties on subject imports made during the period of review and, as such, established a reserve of approximately $3.8 million for this matter. On December 23, 2009, the DOC initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico for the November 1, 2008, through October 31, 2009, period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. On June 21, 2011, the DOC published the final results of this review and assigned Mueller Comercial an antidumping duty rate of 19.8 percent. On August 22, 2011, the Company appealed the final results to the CIT. On December 21, 2012, the CIT issued a decision upholding the Department's final results in part. The ruling is not yet final; however, once a determination is made, it may be appealed by the Company. The Company anticipates that certain of its subsidiaries will incur antidumping duties on subject imports made during the period of review and, as such, established a reserve of approximately $1.1 million for this matter. On December 28, 2010, the DOC initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico for the November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010, period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. On December 14, 2011, the DOC issued a final determination that Mueller Comercial did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the relevant period of review. Therefore, there is zero antidumping duty liability for the Company and its subsidiaries for imports made during the November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010 period of review. On December 30, 2011, the DOC initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico for the November 1, 2010, through October 31, 2011, period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. On December 11, 2012, the DOC issued a preliminary determination to rescind the review with regard to Mueller Comercial because the request for review was withdrawn. By the end of 2013, the DOC should issue its final determination to rescind this review. United States Department of Commerce and United States International Trade Commission Antidumping Investigations On September 30, 2009, two subsidiaries of the Company, along with Cerro Flow Products, Inc. and KobeWieland Copper Products LLC (collectively, Petitioners), jointly filed antidumping petitions with the DOC and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that imports of seamless refined copper pipe and tube from China and Mexico (subject imports) were being sold at less than fair value and were causing material injury (and threatening material injury) to the domestic industry. On October 1, 2010, the DOC published its final affirmative determinations, finding antidumping rates from 24.89 percent to 27.16 percent for Mexico (as subsequently amended), and from 11.25 percent to 60.85 percent for China. On November 22, 2010, the DOC published antidumping orders, with the effect that importers were required to post antidumping cash deposits at rates ranging from 24.89 percent to 27.16 percent (for subject imports from Mexico) and from 11.25 percent to 60.85 percent (for subject imports from China) for imports occurring on or after November 22, 2010. On December 22, 2010, certain Mexican parties requested panel reviews under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in order to appeal the ITC final determination as to Mexico. Following a period of litigation, on December 8, 2011, the last of the Mexican parties voluntarily terminated its NAFTA panel review request, with the effect that the ITC's final threat of material injury determination as to Mexico is final. On July 7, 2011, the DOC initiated a new shipper review of certain entries from a Mexican processor of copper tube, GD Affiliates S.de R.L. de C.V., based on that company's request for a company-specific dumping rate. DOC examined GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. sales for the period November 22, 2010 through April 30, 2011. On September 26, 2012, DOC determined that GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. sold subject merchandise for less than fair value and calculated a weighted average dumping margin of 5.53 percent ad valorem. DOC instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require the posting of cash deposits on all entries of subject merchandise exported by GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. entered into the United States on or after September 26, 2012. On October 24, 2012, GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. requested a panel review under the NAFTA to appeal DOC's determination. Briefing is expected to be completed in mid-2013 and, at this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of the Panel review. In the interim, Customs will require cash deposits for subject merchandise exported by GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. from Mexico and entered into the United States. On August 7, 2012, the DOC published its preliminary results of the first administrative review of exports from China from Hong Kong Hailiang Metal Trading Limited, Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd. (collectively Hailiang) and Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc. (Golden Dragon) finding a dumping margin for Hailiang of 60.58 percent ad valorem and 0.00 percent for Golden Dragon. DOC examined sales during the period November 22, 2010 through October 31, 2011. DOC is scheduled to issue its final results on May 6, 2013. At this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of the administrative review. On December 10, 2012, the DOC published its preliminary results of the first administrative review of exports from Mexico from GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. and its affiliate Hong Kong GD Trading Co., Ltd. (collectively, Golden Dragon) and Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. (Nacobre) finding that neither company sold subject merchandise at dumped prices. DOC examined sales made by Golden Dragon for the period May 1, 2011 through October 31, 2011 and by Nacobre for the period November 22, 2010 through October 31, 2011. DOC is scheduled to issue its final results on April 9, 2013. At this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of the administrative review. On December 31, 2012, the DOC initiated the second administrative review of several Chinese and Mexican copper tube producers and/or exporters to the United States in order to establish company-specific dumping rates based on the period November 1, 2011 through October 31, 2012. The reviews are expected to be completed sometime in 2014. At this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of these second administrative reviews. Supplier Litigation On May 6, 2011, the Company and two of its subsidiaries, Mueller Streamline Co. and B&K Industries, Inc. (B&K)(Plaintiffs), filed a civil lawsuit in federal district court in Los Angeles, California against a former supplier, Xiamen Lota International Co., Ltd (Xiamen Lota), its U.S. sales representative (Lota USA), and certain other persons (Defendants). The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the Defendants gave Peter D. Berkman, a former executive of the Company and B&K, an undisclosed interest in Lota USA, and made payments and promises of payments to him, in return for Peter Berkman maintaining the Company as a customer, increasing purchasing levels, and acquiescing to non-competitive and excessive pricing for Xiamen Lota products. The lawsuit alleged violations of federal statutes 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and (d) (RICO claims) and California state law unfair competition. The lawsuit sought compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and other appropriate relief including an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. In October 2012, the lawsuit, together with certain related proceedings in Illinois and Tennessee, were settled on mutually agreeable terms and, in connection therewith, the Company received a $5.8 million cash payment. The amount recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Income is net of legal costs. Litigation Settlement The Company negotiated a settlement with Peter D. Berkman and Jeffrey A. Berkman, former executives of the Company and B&K Industries, Inc. (B&K), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, that required the payment of $10.5 million in cash by Peter Berkman, Jeffrey Berkman, and Homewerks Worldwide LLC to the Company. During 2011, the Company recorded a gain of $10.5 million upon receipt of the settlement proceeds. Extruded Metals Class Action A purported class action was filed in Michigan Circuit Court by Gaylord L. Miller, and all others similarly situated, against Extruded in March 2012 under nuisance, negligence, and gross negligence theories. It is brought on behalf of all persons in the City of Belding, Michigan, whose property rights have allegedly been interfered with by fallout and/or dust and/or noxious odors, allegedly attributable to Extruded's operations. Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties. They seek compensatory and exemplary damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. At this time, the Company is unable to determine the impact, if any, that this matter will have on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. A mediation between the parties was held on November 8, 2012. The parties did not reach a settlement. Discovery is proceeding in the matter, and Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be heard in early April 2013. The Company plans to have a motion for summary disposition heard on or before that date. The Company believes that a material loss resulting from this litigation is remote. U.K. Actions Relating to the European Commission's 2004 Copper Tubes Decision and 2006 Copper Fittings Decision Mueller Industries, Inc., WTC Holding Company, Inc., DENO Holding Company, Inc., Mueller Europe, Limited, and DENO Acquisition EURL (the Mueller entities) have received letters from counsel for IMI plc and IMI Kynoch Limited (IMI) and from counsel for Boliden AB (Boliden) concerning contribution proceedings by IMI and Boliden against the Mueller entities regarding copper tubes. In the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the CAT) in the United Kingdom, IMI and Boliden have been served with claims by 21 claimants, all companies within the Travis Perkins Group (TP and the TP Claimants). The TP Claimants are seeking follow-on damages arising out conduct described in the European Commission's September 3, 2004, decision regarding copper tubes. The claims purport to arise from the findings of the European Commission as set forth in that decision. Mueller Industries, Inc., Mueller Europe, Limited, and WTC Holding Company, Inc. also have received a letter from counsel for IMI concerning contribution proceedings by IMI against those three Mueller entities regarding copper fittings. In the High Court, IMI has been served with claims by 21 TP Claimants. The TP Claimants are seeking follow-on damages arising out of conduct described in the European Commission's September 20, 2006, decision regarding copper fittings. The claims similarly purport to arise from the findings of the European Commission as set forth in that decision. The letters confirm that IMI and Boliden have commenced legal proceedings against the Mueller entities, and in those proceedings are claiming a contribution for any follow-on damages. IMI and Boliden have formally served their claims on the Mueller entities. While the TP Claimants have provided their preliminary calculations of aggregate claimed damages for the copper tubes claim and the copper fittings claim, Mueller does not believe this matter will have a material affect on the Consolidated Financial Statements for the contribution claims. As to the claims arising from the Copper Tubes Decision brought in the CAT, following the CAT's grant of approval, the case has now been transferred to the High Court. Mueller's defenses in response to the contribution claims brought by IMI and Boliden are due by March 15, 2013. There is then to be a case management conference on the first available date after March 25, 2013. As to the claims arising from the Copper Fittings Decision, these proceedings have been stayed until the next case management conference which is to take place on the first available date after May 31, 2013. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the impact, if any, that this matter will have on its financial position, results of opertions, or cash flows. Canadian Dumping and Countervail Investigation In 2007, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) determined that the Company and certain affiliated companies, as exporters and importers of copper fittings (subject goods) from the U.S. to Canada, had dumped the subject goods during the investigation period. In 2007, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal concluded that the dumping had caused injury to the Canadian industry. As a result of these findings, exports of subject goods to Canada made on or after October 20, 2006 have been subject to antidumping measures. Antidumping duties will be imposed on the Company only to the extent that the Company's future exports of copper pipe fittings are made at net export prices that are below normal values set by the CBSA. The measures remain in place for five years at which time Canadian authorities determine whether to maintain the measures for an additional five years or allow them to expire. Canadian authorities conducted such a sunset review and on February 17, 2012 found that the dumping order should be maintained for another five years. On February 8, 2013, the CBSA completed a review process to revise the normal values issued to the Company. Given the small percentage of its products that are sold for export to Canada, the Company does not anticipate any material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a result of the antidumping case in Canada. Leases The Company leases certain facilities, vehicles, and equipment under operating leases expiring on various dates through 2024. The lease payments under these agreements aggregate to approximately $7.3 million in 2013, $6.0 million in 2014, $5.0 million in 2015, $4.2 million in 2016, $3.2 million in 2017, and $3.5 million thereafter. Total lease expense amounted to $8.5 million in 2012, $8.8 million in 2011, and $8.0 million in 2010. Consulting Agreement During 2004, the Company entered into a consulting and non-compete agreement (the Consulting Agreement) with Mr. Harvey L. Karp, at that time Chairman of the Board. The Consulting Agreement provides for post-employment services to be provided by Mr. Karp for a six-year period. During the first four years of the Consulting Agreement, an annual fee equal to two-thirds of the executive's Final Base Compensation (as defined in the Consulting Agreement) will be payable. During the final two years, the annual fee is set at one-third of the executive's Final Base Compensation. During the term of the Consulting Agreement, the executive agrees not to engage in Competitive Activity (as defined in the Consulting Agreement) and will be entitled to receive certain other benefits from the Company. On November 3, 2011, Mr. Karp notified the Company that he would resign as Chairman of the Company and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Company effective as of December 31, 2011. Following his resignation, on January 1, 2012, the Consulting Agreement commenced. Based upon the value of the non-compete provisions of the Consulting Agreement, the Company will expense the value of the Consulting Agreement over its term. The maximum amount payable under the remaining term of the Consulting Agreement is $5.3 million. Other In November 2008, the Company's copper tube facility in Bilston, Great Britain, was damaged by fire and production was curtailed; the losses were covered by property and business interruption insurance. During 2010, the Company settled the claim with its insurer for total proceeds of $35.3 million, net of the deductible of $0.5 million. As a result of the settlement with its insurer, all proceeds received and all costs previously deferred (which were recorded as a receivable in prior periods) were recognized, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $21.2 million in 2010. In July 2009, there was an explosion at the Company's copper tube facility in Fulton, Mississippi, resulting in damage to certain production equipment. In 2010, the Company recorded a gain of $1.5 million related to the property damage claim. In the first quarter of 2012, the Company settled the business interruption portion of this claim and recognized a $1.5 million gain. In September 2011, a portion of the Company's Wynne, Arkansas, manufacturing operation was damaged by fire. Certain inventories, production equipment, and building structures were extensively damaged. The total value of the loss, including business interruption, cannot be determined at this time, but is expected to be covered by property and business interruption insurance subject to customary deductibles. Any gain resulting from insurance proceeds for property damage in excess of the net book value of the related property will be recognized in income upon settlement of the claim. In addition, the Company has deferred recognition of direct, identifiable costs associated with this matter. These costs will also be recognized upon settlement of the insurance claim. As of December 29, 2012, the Company has received advances totaling $65 million from the insurance company for this claim, of which $55 million was received during 2012. These advances, net of the book value of damaged inventories, equipment, and buildings and direct cleanup and other out of pocket costs totaled $44.6 million, classified as other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 29, 2012. Additionally, the Company is involved in certain litigation as a result of claims that arose in the ordinary course of business, which management believes will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company may also realize the benefit of certain legal claims and litigation in the future; these gain contingencies are not recognized in the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental

The Company is subject to environmental standards imposed by federal, state, local, and foreign environmental laws and regulations. For all properties, the Company has provided and charged to expense $3.1 million in 2012, $0.4 million in 2011, and $5.4 million in 2010 for pending environmental matters. Environmental costs related to non-operating properties are classified as a component of other income (expense), net and costs related to operating properties are classified as cost of goods sold. Environmental reserves totaled $24.6 million at December 29, 2012 and $22.9 million at December 31, 2011. As of December 29, 2012, the Company expects to spend on existing environmental matters $1.9 million in 2013, $0.9 million in 2014, $0.8 million in 2015, $0.9 million in 2016, $0.9 million in 2017, and $9.7 million thereafter. The timing of a potential payment for a $9.5 million settlement offer has not yet been determined.

Non-operating Properties

Southeast Kansas Sites

By letter dated October 10, 2006, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) advised the Company that environmental contamination has been identified at a former smelter site in southeast Kansas. KDHE asserts that the Company is a corporate successor to an entity that is alleged to have owned and operated the smelter from 1915 to 1918. The Company has since been advised of a possible connection between that same entity and two other former smelter sites in Kansas. KDHE has requested that the Company and other potentially responsible parties (PRPs) negotiate a consent order with KDHE to address contamination at these sites. The Company believes it is not liable for the contamination but as an alternative to litigation, the Company has entered into settlement negotiations with one of the other PRPs. The negotiations are ongoing. In 2008, the Company established a reserve of $9.5 million for this matter. Due to the ongoing nature of negotiations, the timing of potential payment has not yet been determined. The Company has agreed to share the costs of a preliminary site assessment at one of the former smelter sites with two other PRPs, signed an agreement, and agreed on a work plan with KDHE by which the PRPs would study the East La Harpe site without conceding liability. The Company also paid $10 thousand toward KDHE's past costs and received a release for any further claims for past costs at the site. Discussions with KDHE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other PRPs about the other two smelter sites continue.

Shasta Area Mine Sites

Mining Remedial Recovery Company (MRRC), a wholly owned subsidiary, owns certain inactive mines in Shasta County, California. MRRC has continued a program, begun in the late 1980's, of sealing mine portals with concrete plugs in mine adits, which were discharging water. The sealing program has achieved significant reductions in the metal load in discharges from these adits; however, additional reductions are required pursuant to an order issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (QCB). In response to a 1996 Order issued by the QCB, MRRC completed a feasibility study in 1997 describing measures designed to mitigate the effects of acid rock drainage. In December 1998, the QCB modified the 1996 order extending MRRC's time to comply with water quality standards. In September 2002, the QCB adopted a new order requiring MRRC to adopt Best Management Practices (BMP) to control discharges of acid mine drainage. That order extended the time to comply with water quality standards until September 2007. During that time, implementation of BMP further reduced impacts of acid rock drainage; however, full compliance has not been achieved. The QCB is presently renewing MRRC's discharge permit and will concurrently issue a new order. It is expected that the new permit will include an order requiring continued implementation of BMP through 2015 to address residual discharges of acid rock drainage. At this site, MRRC spent approximately $1.7 million from 2010 through 2012 and estimates that it will spend between approximately $8.4 million and $12.4 million over the next 20 years.

Lead Refinery Site

U.S.S. Lead Refinery, Inc. (Lead Refinery), a non-operating wholly owned subsidiary of MRRC, has conducted corrective action and interim remedial activities and studies (collectively, Site Activities) at Lead Refinery's East Chicago, Indiana site pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Site Activities, which began in December 1996, have been substantially concluded. Lead Refinery is required to perform monitoring and maintenance activities with respect to Site Activities pursuant to a post-closure permit issued by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) effective as of January 22, 2008. Lead Refinery spent approximately $0.1 million annually in 2012, 2011 and 2010 with respect to this site. Approximate costs to comply with the post-closure permit, including associated general and administrative costs, are between $2.4 million and $3.6 million over the next 20 years.

On April 9, 2009, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the EPA added the Lead Refinery site, and properties adjacent to the Lead Refinery site, to the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is a list of priority sites where the EPA has determined that there has been a release or threatened release of hazardous substances that warrant investigation and, if appropriate, remedial action. The NPL does not assign liability to any party including the owner or operator of a property placed on the NPL. The placement of a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that remedial action must be taken. On July 17, 2009, Lead Refinery received a written notice from the EPA that the agency is of the view that Lead Refinery may be a PRP under CERCLA in connection with the release or threaten of release of hazardous substances including lead into properties located adjacent to the Lead Refinery site. There are at least two other PRPs. PRPs under CERCLA include current and former owners and operators of a site, persons who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at a site, or persons who accepted hazardous substances for transport to a site. In November 2012, the EPA adopted a remedy in connection with properties located adjacent to the Lead Refinery site. The EPA has estimated that the cost to implement the November 2012 remedy will be $28.9 million.

The Company monitors EPA releases and periodically communicates with the EPA to inquire of the status of the investigation and cleanup of the Lead Refinery site. As of December 29, 2012, the EPA has not conducted an investigation of the Lead Refinery site, proposed remedies for the Lead Refinery site, or informed Lead Refinery that it is a PRP at the Lead Refinery site. Until the extent of remedial action is determined for the Lead Refinery site, the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of a material adverse outcome or the amount or range of a potential loss with respect to placement of the Lead Refinery site and adjacent properties on the NPL. Lead Refinery lacks the financial resources needed to undertake any investigations or remedial action that may be required by the EPA pursuant to CERCLA.

Operating Properties

Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc.

In 1999, Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc. (MCTP), a wholly owned subsidiary, commenced a cleanup and remediation of soil and groundwater at its Wynne, Arkansas plant. MCTP is currently removing trichloroethylene, a cleaning solvent formerly used by MCTP, from the soil and groundwater. On August 30, 2000, MCTP received approval of its Final Comprehensive Investigation Report and Storm Water Drainage Investigation Report addressing the treatment of soils and groundwater from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The Company established a reserve for this project in connection with the acquisition of MCTP in 1998. Effective November 17, 2008, MCTP entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order by Consent to submit a Supplemental Investigation Work Plan (SIWP) and subsequent Final Remediation Work Plan for the site. By letter dated January 20, 2010, ADEQ approved the SIWP as submitted, with changes acceptable to the Company. On December 16, 2011, MCTP entered into an amended Administrative Order by Consent to prepare and implement a revised Remediation Work Plan regarding final remediation for the Site. Costs to implement the work plans, including associated general and administrative costs, are approximately $2.6 million over the next ten years.

Belding, Michigan Lead Matters

In October 2010, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) conducted testing of lead levels in soils on properties upwind and downwind of the Belding, Michigan facility of Extruded Metals, Inc. (Extruded), a subsidiary of the Company. Results of that testing showed exceedances of the Michigan generic residential direct contact cleanup criteria for lead on a number of the downwind properties. Extruded has investigated the extent of this condition and performed remediation to the extent required by environmental laws and in accordance with a plan approved by the MDEQ in April 2011. In January 2012, Extruded submitted a final Certification Report to the MDEQ documenting its completion of that remediation. The Company provided $0.4 million in 2010 for this matter, and is pursuing potential remedies from the previous owner. The Company does not expect additional material losses associated with these environmental matters.

In November 2010, Extruded received a request for information under Section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act from the EPA. The focus of the EPA's information request was the Extruded facility's compliance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources, 40 C.F.R. § 63.11462 (Subpart TTTTTT). Extruded responded to the information request and advised the EPA of its position that it was not subject to regulation under Subpart TTTTTT. The state requested that Extruded request an applicability determination from the EPA. On March 11, 2011, Mueller Brass Co. (MBCo), a subsidiary of the Company, submitted a request for an applicability determination to Region V of the EPA.

On or about October 24, 2012, MBCo was notified that based on the process description provided in its letter, EPA agreed that it is not an ingot making facility and, therefore is not subject to Subpart TTTTTT. This determination relieves the Company of future compliance requirements as well as any risk of civil penalties.

The estimates contained in the environmental reserves are based on assumptions that are highly subjective. Many of the remedial activities performed by the Company are pursuant to performance-based obligations imposed by various regulatory bodies in which certain standards regarding levels of contaminants must be met. The most subjective assumption that affects the estimates at these sites is the assumed length of time to comply with the remedial requirements set by the regulatory authorities. This assumption is subject to change based on the regulatory environment, unanticipated delays and events that could limit access to these sites, unforeseen negative sampling results, and other factors. Changes in any of these factors could have a material impact on future environmental expense.

United States Department of Commerce Antidumping Review

On December 24, 2008, the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico to determine the final antidumping duties owed on U.S. imports during the period November 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008, by certain subsidiaries of the Company. On April 19, 2010, the DOC published the final results of this review and assigned Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mueller Comercial) an antidumping duty rate of 48.3 percent. The Company has appealed the final determination to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). On December 16, 2011, the CIT issued a decision to remand the final results back to DOC to reconsider its decision. The Department issued its remand determination on May 14, 2012. In that determination, the DOC again assigned Mueller Comercial an antidumping duty rate of 48.3 percent. On June 13, 2012, Mueller challenged the DOC's remand determination. The Company anticipates that certain of its subsidiaries will incur antidumping duties on subject imports made during the period of review and, as such, established a reserve of approximately $3.8 million for this matter.

On December 23, 2009, the DOC initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico for the November 1, 2008, through October 31, 2009, period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. On June 21, 2011, the DOC published the final results of this review and assigned Mueller Comercial an antidumping duty rate of 19.8 percent. On August 22, 2011, the Company appealed the final results to the CIT. On December 21, 2012, the CIT issued a decision upholding the Department's final results in part. The ruling is not yet final; however, once a determination is made, it may be appealed by the Company. The Company anticipates that certain of its subsidiaries will incur antidumping duties on subject imports made during the period of review and, as such, established a reserve of approximately $1.1 million for this matter.

On December 28, 2010, the DOC initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico for the November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010, period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. On December 14, 2011, the DOC issued a final determination that Mueller Comercial did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the relevant period of review. Therefore, there is zero antidumping duty liability for the Company and its subsidiaries for imports made during the November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010 period of review.

On December 30, 2011, the DOC initiated an antidumping administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico for the November 1, 2010, through October 31, 2011, period of review. The DOC selected Mueller Comercial as a respondent for this period of review. On December 11, 2012, the DOC issued a preliminary determination to rescind the review with regard to Mueller Comercial because the request for review was withdrawn. By the end of 2013, the DOC should issue its final determination to rescind this review.

United States Department of Commerce and United States International Trade Commission Antidumping Investigations

On September 30, 2009, two subsidiaries of the Company, along with Cerro Flow Products, Inc. and KobeWieland Copper Products LLC (collectively, Petitioners), jointly filed antidumping petitions with the DOC and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that imports of seamless refined copper pipe and tube from China and Mexico (subject imports) were being sold at less than fair value and were causing material injury (and threatening material injury) to the domestic industry. On October 1, 2010, the DOC published its final affirmative determinations, finding antidumping rates from 24.89 percent to 27.16 percent for Mexico (as subsequently amended), and from 11.25 percent to 60.85 percent for China.

On November 22, 2010, the DOC published antidumping orders, with the effect that importers were required to post antidumping cash deposits at rates ranging from 24.89 percent to 27.16 percent (for subject imports from Mexico) and from 11.25 percent to 60.85 percent (for subject imports from China) for imports occurring on or after November 22, 2010.

On December 22, 2010, certain Mexican parties requested panel reviews under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in order to appeal the ITC final determination as to Mexico. Following a period of litigation, on December 8, 2011, the last of the Mexican parties voluntarily terminated its NAFTA panel review request, with the effect that the ITC's final threat of material injury determination as to Mexico is final.

On July 7, 2011, the DOC initiated a new shipper review of certain entries from a Mexican processor of copper tube, GD Affiliates S.de R.L. de C.V., based on that company's request for a company-specific dumping rate. DOC examined GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. sales for the period November 22, 2010 through April 30, 2011. On September 26, 2012, DOC determined that GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. sold subject merchandise for less than fair value and calculated a weighted average dumping margin of 5.53 percent ad valorem. DOC instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require the posting of cash deposits on all entries of subject merchandise exported by GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. entered into the United States on or after September 26, 2012. On October 24, 2012, GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. requested a panel review under the NAFTA to appeal DOC's determination. Briefing is expected to be completed in mid-2013 and, at this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of the Panel review. In the interim, Customs will require cash deposits for subject merchandise exported by GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. from Mexico and entered into the United States.

On August 7, 2012, the DOC published its preliminary results of the first administrative review of exports from China from Hong Kong Hailiang Metal Trading Limited, Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd. (collectively Hailiang) and Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc. (Golden Dragon) finding a dumping margin for Hailiang of 60.58 percent ad valorem and 0.00 percent for Golden Dragon. DOC examined sales during the period November 22, 2010 through October 31, 2011. DOC is scheduled to issue its final results on May 6, 2013. At this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of the administrative review.

On December 10, 2012, the DOC published its preliminary results of the first administrative review of exports from Mexico from GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. and its affiliate Hong Kong GD Trading Co., Ltd. (collectively, Golden Dragon) and Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. (Nacobre) finding that neither company sold subject merchandise at dumped prices. DOC examined sales made by Golden Dragon for the period May 1, 2011 through October 31, 2011 and by Nacobre for the period November 22, 2010 through October 31, 2011. DOC is scheduled to issue its final results on April 9, 2013. At this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of the administrative review.

On December 31, 2012, the DOC initiated the second administrative review of several Chinese and Mexican copper tube producers and/or exporters to the United States in order to establish company-specific dumping rates based on the period November 1, 2011 through October 31, 2012. The reviews are expected to be completed sometime in 2014. At this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of these second administrative reviews.

Supplier Litigation

On May 6, 2011, the Company and two of its subsidiaries, Mueller Streamline Co. and B&K Industries, Inc. (B&K)(Plaintiffs), filed a civil lawsuit in federal district court in Los Angeles, California against a former supplier, Xiamen Lota International Co., Ltd (Xiamen Lota), its U.S. sales representative (Lota USA), and certain other persons (Defendants). The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the Defendants gave Peter D. Berkman, a former executive of the Company and B&K, an undisclosed interest in Lota USA, and made payments and promises of payments to him, in return for Peter Berkman maintaining the Company as a customer, increasing purchasing levels, and acquiescing to non-competitive and excessive pricing for Xiamen Lota products. The lawsuit alleged violations of federal statutes 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and (d) (RICO claims) and California state law unfair competition. The lawsuit sought compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and other appropriate relief including an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. In October 2012, the lawsuit, together with certain related proceedings in Illinois and Tennessee, were settled on mutually agreeable terms and, in connection therewith, the Company received a $5.8 million cash payment. The amount recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Income is net of legal costs.

Litigation Settlement

The Company negotiated a settlement with Peter D. Berkman and Jeffrey A. Berkman, former executives of the Company and B&K Industries, Inc. (B&K), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, that required the payment of $10.5 million in cash by Peter Berkman, Jeffrey Berkman, and Homewerks Worldwide LLC to the Company. During 2011, the Company recorded a gain of $10.5 million upon receipt of the settlement proceeds.

Extruded Metals Class Action

A purported class action was filed in Michigan Circuit Court by Gaylord L. Miller, and all others similarly situated, against Extruded in March 2012 under nuisance, negligence, and gross negligence theories. It is brought on behalf of all persons in the City of Belding, Michigan, whose property rights have allegedly been interfered with by fallout and/or dust and/or noxious odors, allegedly attributable to Extruded's operations. Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties. They seek compensatory and exemplary damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. At this time, the Company is unable to determine the impact, if any, that this matter will have on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. A mediation between the parties was held on November 8, 2012. The parties did not reach a settlement. Discovery is proceeding in the matter, and Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be heard in early April 2013. The Company plans to have a motion for summary disposition heard on or before that date. The Company believes that a material loss resulting from this litigation is remote.

U.K. Actions Relating to the European Commission's 2004 Copper Tubes Decision and 2006 Copper Fittings Decision

Mueller Industries, Inc., WTC Holding Company, Inc., DENO Holding Company, Inc., Mueller Europe, Limited, and DENO Acquisition EURL (the Mueller entities) have received letters from counsel for IMI plc and IMI Kynoch Limited (IMI) and from counsel for Boliden AB (Boliden) concerning contribution proceedings by IMI and Boliden against the Mueller entities regarding copper tubes. In the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the CAT) in the United Kingdom, IMI and Boliden have been served with claims by 21 claimants, all companies within the Travis Perkins Group (TP and the TP Claimants). The TP Claimants are seeking follow-on damages arising out conduct described in the European Commission's September 3, 2004, decision regarding copper tubes. The claims purport to arise from the findings of the European Commission as set forth in that decision.

Mueller Industries, Inc., Mueller Europe, Limited, and WTC Holding Company, Inc. also have received a letter from counsel for IMI concerning contribution proceedings by IMI against those three Mueller entities regarding copper fittings. In the High Court, IMI has been served with claims by 21 TP Claimants. The TP Claimants are seeking follow-on damages arising out of conduct described in the European Commission's September 20, 2006, decision regarding copper fittings. The claims similarly purport to arise from the findings of the European Commission as set forth in that decision.

The letters confirm that IMI and Boliden have commenced legal proceedings against the Mueller entities, and in those proceedings are claiming a contribution for any follow-on damages. IMI and Boliden have formally served their claims on the Mueller entities.

While the TP Claimants have provided their preliminary calculations of aggregate claimed damages for the copper tubes claim and the copper fittings claim, Mueller does not believe this matter will have a material affect on the Consolidated Financial Statements for the contribution claims.

As to the claims arising from the Copper Tubes Decision brought in the CAT, following the CAT's grant of approval, the case has now been transferred to the High Court. Mueller's defenses in response to the contribution claims brought by IMI and Boliden are due by March 15, 2013. There is then to be a case management conference on the first available date after March 25, 2013.

As to the claims arising from the Copper Fittings Decision, these proceedings have been stayed until the next case management conference which is to take place on the first available date after May 31, 2013.

At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the impact, if any, that this matter will have on its financial position, results of opertions, or cash flows.

Canadian Dumping and Countervail Investigation

In 2007, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) determined that the Company and certain affiliated companies, as exporters and importers of copper fittings (subject goods) from the U.S. to Canada, had dumped the subject goods during the investigation period. In 2007, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal concluded that the dumping had caused injury to the Canadian industry. As a result of these findings, exports of subject goods to Canada made on or after October 20, 2006 have been subject to antidumping measures. Antidumping duties will be imposed on the Company only to the extent that the Company's future exports of copper pipe fittings are made at net export prices that are below normal values set by the CBSA. The measures remain in place for five years at which time Canadian authorities determine whether to maintain the measures for an additional five years or allow them to expire. Canadian authorities conducted such a sunset review and on February 17, 2012 found that the dumping order should be maintained for another five years.

On February 8, 2013, the CBSA completed a review process to revise the normal values issued to the Company. Given the small percentage of its products that are sold for export to Canada, the Company does not anticipate any material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a result of the antidumping case in Canada.

Leases

The Company leases certain facilities, vehicles, and equipment under operating leases expiring on various dates through 2024. The lease payments under these agreements aggregate to approximately $7.3 million in 2013, $6.0 million in 2014, $5.0 million in 2015, $4.2 million in 2016, $3.2 million in 2017, and $3.5 million thereafter. Total lease expense amounted to $8.5 million in 2012, $8.8 million in 2011, and $8.0 million in 2010.

Consulting Agreement

During 2004, the Company entered into a consulting and non-compete agreement (the Consulting Agreement) with Mr. Harvey L. Karp, at that time Chairman of the Board. The Consulting Agreement provides for post-employment services to be provided by Mr. Karp for a six-year period. During the first four years of the Consulting Agreement, an annual fee equal to two-thirds of the executive's Final Base Compensation (as defined in the Consulting Agreement) will be payable. During the final two years, the annual fee is set at one-third of the executive's Final Base Compensation. During the term of the Consulting Agreement, the executive agrees not to engage in Competitive Activity (as defined in the Consulting Agreement) and will be entitled to receive certain other benefits from the Company.

On November 3, 2011, Mr. Karp notified the Company that he would resign as Chairman of the Company and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Company effective as of December 31, 2011. Following his resignation, on January 1, 2012, the Consulting Agreement commenced. Based upon the value of the non-compete provisions of the Consulting Agreement, the Company will expense the value of the Consulting Agreement over its term. The maximum amount payable under the remaining term of the Consulting Agreement is $5.3 million.

Other

In November 2008, the Company's copper tube facility in Bilston, Great Britain, was damaged by fire and production was curtailed; the losses were covered by property and business interruption insurance. During 2010, the Company settled the claim with its insurer for total proceeds of $35.3 million, net of the deductible of $0.5 million. As a result of the settlement with its insurer, all proceeds received and all costs previously deferred (which were recorded as a receivable in prior periods) were recognized, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $21.2 million in 2010.

In July 2009, there was an explosion at the Company's copper tube facility in Fulton, Mississippi, resulting in damage to certain production equipment. In 2010, the Company recorded a gain of $1.5 million related to the property damage claim. In the first quarter of 2012, the Company settled the business interruption portion of this claim and recognized a $1.5 million gain.

In September 2011, a portion of the Company's Wynne, Arkansas, manufacturing operation was damaged by fire. Certain inventories, production equipment, and building structures were extensively damaged. The total value of the loss, including business interruption, cannot be determined at this time, but is expected to be covered by property and business interruption insurance subject to customary deductibles. Any gain resulting from insurance proceeds for property damage in excess of the net book value of the related property will be recognized in income upon settlement of the claim. In addition, the Company has deferred recognition of direct, identifiable costs associated with this matter. These costs will also be recognized upon settlement of the insurance claim. As of December 29, 2012, the Company has received advances totaling $65 million from the insurance company for this claim, of which $55 million was received during 2012. These advances, net of the book value of damaged inventories, equipment, and buildings and direct cleanup and other out of pocket costs totaled $44.6 million, classified as other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 29, 2012.

Additionally, the Company is involved in certain litigation as a result of claims that arose in the ordinary course of business, which management believes will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company may also realize the benefit of certain legal claims and litigation in the future; these gain contingencies are not recognized in the Consolidated Financial Statements.