Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 28, 2013
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 $1.0 million in 2013, $3.1 million in 2012, and $0.4 million in 2011 for pending environmental matters. Environmental costs related to non-operating properties are classified as a component of other income, net and costs related to operating properties are classified as cost of goods sold. Environmental reserves totaled $23.6 million at December 28, 2013 and $24.6 million at December 29, 2012. As of December 28, 2013, the Company expects to spend on existing environmental matters $1.4 million in 2014, $0.9 million in 2015, $0.8 million in 2016, $0.8 million in 2017, $0.8 million in 2018, and $9.4 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 The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) has contacted the Company regarding environmental contamination at three former smelter sites in Kansas (Altoona, Iola and East La Harpe). While the Company believes that legally it is not a successor to the companies that operated these smelter sites, it is discussing possible settlement with KDHE and other potentially responsible parties (PRP) in order to avoid litigation. In 2008, the Company established a reserve of $9.5 million for this matter. Another PRP has conducted a site investigation of the Altoona site under a consent decree with KDHE. The Company and two other PRPs have conducted a site study evaluation of the East La Harpe site under KDHE supervision, and are now discussing sharing the costs of a possible cleanup. Federal EPA is in the early stages of study and remediation of the Iola site, which it added to the National Priority List (NPL) in May, 2013 as the “Former United Zinc & Associated Smelters” site. 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 1980s, of sealing mine portals with concrete plugs in mine adits, which were discharging water. The sealing program 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 ten-year permit will include an order requiring continued implementation of BMP through 2025 to address residual discharges of acid rock drainage. At this site, MRRC spent approximately $1.7 million from 2011 through 2013 and estimates that it will spend between approximately $10.0 million and $13.6 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 March 2, 2013. Lead Refinery spent approximately $0.1 million annually in 2013, 2012, and 2011 with respect to this site. Approximate costs to comply with the post-closure permit, including associated general and administrative costs, are between $2.1 million and $2.9 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 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 $30.0 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 28, 2013, 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. Construction and installation of the remediation system is under way. The remediation system was activated in February 2014. Costs to implement the work plans, including associated general and administrative costs, are approximately $1.9 million over the next ten years. 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 appealed the final determination to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The Company and the United States have reached an agreement to settle the appeal. As a result, the DOC published on March 22, 2013 the amended final results of the review and assigned Mueller Comercial an antidumping duty rate of 40.5 percent. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has assessed antidumping duties on subject imports during the period of review. The Company has established a reserve of approximately $3.1 million for these duties. 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 in the review. On June 21, 2011, the DOC published the final results of the 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 CIT issued its final judgment on May 2, 2013. On May 6, 2013, the Company appealed the CIT decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). On January 10, 2014, the Federal Circuit held oral argument in the appeal. 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. Subsequent to October 31, 2009, Mueller Comercial did not ship subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, there is no antidumping duty liability for periods of review after October 31, 2009. 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 28.16 percent for Mexico (as subsequently amended), and from 11.25 percent to 60.85 percent for China. Since November 22, 2010, as a result of the imposition of the antidumping duty orders on seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico and China, importers have been required to post cash deposits at rates up to 28.16 percent (for Mexico) and up to 60.85 percent (for China). Over the last two years, the DOC conducted a “new shipper review” of a new Golden Dragon plant in Mexico, followed by the first administrative reviews of imports from Mexico and China (for the period November 22, 2010 through October 31, 2011). Although Golden Dragon was found to be dumping in the “new shipper review,” the impact of the more recent administrative reviews is that imports from certain companies (i.e., Golden Dragon in China, and Golden Dragon and Nacobre in Mexico) will not be subject to cash deposits requirements until completion of the ongoing second administrative reviews in 2014. These decisions are currently on appeal, during which time no importers may receive any duty refunds. Furthermore, all companies in China and Mexico remain subject to the disciplines of the antidumping duty orders and future administrative reviews, and imports from other companies remain subject to cash deposit requirements, including IUSA (24.89 percent) and Luvata (28.16 percent) in Mexico, as well as Hailiang (60.85 percent) and Luvata (36.05 percent) in China. On December 30, 2013, the DOC initiated the third 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, 2012 through October 31, 2013. The reviews are expected to be completed sometime in 2015. At this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of these 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. 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 five 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 five Mueller entities regarding copper tube. 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 of conduct described in the European Commission’s September 3, 2004, decision regarding copper tube. The claims purport to arise from the findings of the European Commission as set forth in that decision. IMI and Boliden have commenced legal proceedings against the five 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 five Mueller entities. Mueller Industries, Inc., Mueller Europe, Limited, and WTC Holding Company, Inc. (the three Mueller entities) 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. IMI has commenced legal proceedings against the three Mueller entities, and in those proceedings are claiming a contribution for any follow-on damages. IMI has formally served its claims on the three Mueller entities. While the TP Claimants have provided their preliminary calculations of aggregate claimed damages for the copper tube claim and the copper fittings claim, Mueller does not believe these matters will have a material affect on the Consolidated Financial Statements for the contribution claims. As to the claims arising from the Copper Tube 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 were served on March 15, 2013. A case management conference is to be held in May 2014. 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 in April 2014. At this time, the Company does not believe that this matter will have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, 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. Another review process to revise the normal values was initiated on January 15, 2014 and is scheduled to conclude on May 30, 2014. 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 $6.7 million in 2014, $5.7 million in 2015, $4.5 million in 2016, $3.3 million in 2017, $2.3 million in 2018, and $1.5 million thereafter. Total lease expense amounted to $9.1 million in 2013, $8.5 million in 2012, and $8.8 million in 2011. 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) is 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, Mr. Karp agrees not to engage in Competitive Activity (as defined in the Consulting Agreement) and is 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 $4.0 million. Other 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. During the second quarter of 2013, the Company settled the claim with its insurer for total proceeds of $127.3 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 other current liabilities in prior periods) were recognized, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $106.3 million in the second quarter of 2013, or $2.33 per diluted share after tax. The Company received proceeds of $62.3 million, $55.0 million, and $10.0 million in 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively. 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 $1.0 million in 2013, $3.1 million in 2012, and $0.4 million in 2011 for pending environmental matters. Environmental costs related to non-operating properties are classified as a component of other income, net and costs related to operating properties are classified as cost of goods sold. Environmental reserves totaled $23.6 million at December 28, 2013 and $24.6 million at December 29, 2012. As of December 28, 2013, the Company expects to spend on existing environmental matters $1.4 million in 2014, $0.9 million in 2015, $0.8 million in 2016, $0.8 million in 2017, $0.8 million in 2018, and $9.4 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

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) has contacted the Company regarding environmental contamination at three former smelter sites in Kansas (Altoona, Iola and East La Harpe). While the Company believes that legally it is not a successor to the companies that operated these smelter sites, it is discussing possible settlement with KDHE and other potentially responsible parties (PRP) in order to avoid litigation. In 2008, the Company established a reserve of $9.5 million for this matter. Another PRP has conducted a site investigation of the Altoona site under a consent decree with KDHE. The Company and two other PRPs have conducted a site study evaluation of the East La Harpe site under KDHE supervision, and are now discussing sharing the costs of a possible cleanup. Federal EPA is in the early stages of study and remediation of the Iola site, which it added to the National Priority List (NPL) in May, 2013 as the “Former United Zinc & Associated Smelters” site.

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 1980s, of sealing mine portals with concrete plugs in mine adits, which were discharging water. The sealing program 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 ten-year permit will include an order requiring continued implementation of BMP through 2025 to address residual discharges of acid rock drainage. At this site, MRRC spent approximately $1.7 million from 2011 through 2013 and estimates that it will spend between approximately $10.0 million and $13.6 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 March 2, 2013. Lead Refinery spent approximately $0.1 million annually in 2013, 2012, and 2011 with respect to this site. Approximate costs to comply with the post-closure permit, including associated general and administrative costs, are between $2.1 million and $2.9 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 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 $30.0 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 28, 2013, 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. Construction and installation of the remediation system is under way. The remediation system was activated in February 2014. Costs to implement the work plans, including associated general and administrative costs, are approximately $1.9 million over the next ten years.

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 appealed the final determination to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The Company and the United States have reached an agreement to settle the appeal. As a result, the DOC published on March 22, 2013 the amended final results of the review and assigned Mueller Comercial an antidumping duty rate of 40.5 percent. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has assessed antidumping duties on subject imports during the period of review. The Company has established a reserve of approximately $3.1 million for these duties.

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 in the review. On June 21, 2011, the DOC published the final results of the 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 CIT issued its final judgment on May 2, 2013. On May 6, 2013, the Company appealed the CIT decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). On January 10, 2014, the Federal Circuit held oral argument in the appeal. 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.

Subsequent to October 31, 2009, Mueller Comercial did not ship subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, there is no antidumping duty liability for periods of review after October 31, 2009.

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 28.16 percent for Mexico (as subsequently amended), and from 11.25 percent to 60.85 percent for China.

Since November 22, 2010, as a result of the imposition of the antidumping duty orders on seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico and China, importers have been required to post cash deposits at rates up to 28.16 percent (for Mexico) and up to 60.85 percent (for China).

Over the last two years, the DOC conducted a “new shipper review” of a new Golden Dragon plant in Mexico, followed by the first administrative reviews of imports from Mexico and China (for the period November 22, 2010 through October 31, 2011). Although Golden Dragon was found to be dumping in the “new shipper review,” the impact of the more recent administrative reviews is that imports from certain companies (i.e., Golden Dragon in China, and Golden Dragon and Nacobre in Mexico) will not be subject to cash deposits requirements until completion of the ongoing second administrative reviews in 2014. These decisions are currently on appeal, during which time no importers may receive any duty refunds. Furthermore, all companies in China and Mexico remain subject to the disciplines of the antidumping duty orders and future administrative reviews, and imports from other companies remain subject to cash deposit requirements, including IUSA (24.89 percent) and Luvata (28.16 percent) in Mexico, as well as Hailiang (60.85 percent) and Luvata (36.05 percent) in China.

On December 30, 2013, the DOC initiated the third 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, 2012 through October 31, 2013. The reviews are expected to be completed sometime in 2015. At this time, the Company is unable to know the final disposition of these 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.

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 five 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 five Mueller entities regarding copper tube. 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 of conduct described in the European Commission’s September 3, 2004, decision regarding copper tube. The claims purport to arise from the findings of the European Commission as set forth in that decision. IMI and Boliden have commenced legal proceedings against the five 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 five Mueller entities.

Mueller Industries, Inc., Mueller Europe, Limited, and WTC Holding Company, Inc. (the three Mueller entities) 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. IMI has commenced legal proceedings against the three Mueller entities, and in those proceedings are claiming a contribution for any follow-on damages. IMI has formally served its claims on the three Mueller entities.

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

As to the claims arising from the Copper Tube 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 were served on March 15, 2013. A case management conference is to be held in May 2014.

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 in April 2014.

At this time, the Company does not believe that this matter will have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, 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. Another review process to revise the normal values was initiated on January 15, 2014 and is scheduled to conclude on May 30, 2014. 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 $6.7 million in 2014, $5.7 million in 2015, $4.5 million in 2016, $3.3 million in 2017, $2.3 million in 2018, and $1.5 million thereafter. Total lease expense amounted to $9.1 million in 2013, $8.5 million in 2012, and $8.8 million in 2011.

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) is 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, Mr. Karp agrees not to engage in Competitive Activity (as defined in the Consulting Agreement) and is 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 $4.0 million.

Other

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. During the second quarter of 2013, the Company settled the claim with its insurer for total proceeds of $127.3 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 other current liabilities in prior periods) were recognized, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $106.3 million in the second quarter of 2013, or $2.33 per diluted share after tax. The Company received proceeds of $62.3 million, $55.0 million, and $10.0 million in 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively.

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.