Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

The Company leases office space and equipment under various operating leases, which generally are expected to be renewed or replaced by other leases. The Company has certain capitalized leases consisting principally of leases of buildings. As of December 31, 2013, future minimum lease payments under these non-cancelable leases and the present value of the net minimum lease payments for the capitalized leases are:

(in thousands)	Operating Leases		Capitalized Leases
2014	$	1,507	$	115
2015	927		8
2016	515		—
2017	287		—
2018	110		—
Thereafter	—		—
Total minimum lease payments	$	3,346	$	123
Less amount representing interest			3
Present value of net minimum lease payments			$	120
Less current portion			112
Long-term portion			$	8

Rental expense for operating leases was $2,293,000 for 2013, $2,088,000 for 2012, and $1,879,000 for 2011.

Purchase obligations of $83,105,000 represent an estimate of goods and services to be purchased under outstanding purchase orders not reflected on the Company’s balance sheet. New purchase obligations should be received and paid for during the current fiscal year.

Other

Like other manufacturers, the Company is subject to a broad range of federal, state, local and foreign laws and requirements, including those concerning air emissions, discharges into waterways, and the generation, handling, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of hazardous substances and waste materials, as well as the remediation of contamination associated with releases of hazardous substances at the Company’s facilities and offsite disposal locations, workplace safety and equal employment opportunities. These laws and regulations are constantly changing, and it is impossible to predict with accuracy the effect that changes to such laws and regulations may have on the Company in the future. Like other industrial concerns, the Company’s manufacturing operations entail the risk of noncompliance, and there can be no assurance that the Company will not incur material costs or other liabilities as a result thereof.

The Company knows that its Indianola, Iowa property is contaminated with chromium which most likely resulted from chrome plating operations which were discontinued before the Company purchased the property. Chlorinated volatile organic compounds have also been detected in water samples on the property, though the source is unknown at this time. The Company voluntarily worked with an environmental consultant and the state of Iowa with respect to these issues and believes it completed its remediation program in June 2006. The work was accomplished within the Company’s environmental liability reserve balance. We requested a “no further action” classification from the state. We received a conditional “no further action” letter in January of 2009. When we demonstrate stable or improving conditions below residential standards for a certain period of time by monitoring existing wells, we will request an unconditional “no further action” letter.

The Company knows that Bush Hog’s main manufacturing property in Selma, Alabama was contaminated with chlorinated volatile organic compounds which most likely resulted from painting and cleaning operations during the 1960s and 1970s. The contaminated areas were primarily in the location of underground storage tanks and underneath the former waste storage area. Under the Asset Purchase Agreement, Bush Hog’s prior owner agreed to and has removed the underground storage tanks at its cost and has remediated the identified contamination in accordance with the regulations of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. An environmental consulting firm was retained by the prior owner to administer the cleanup and monitor the site on an ongoing basis until the remediation program is complete and approved by the applicable authorities.

In December of 2012, a federal district court jury in Louisiana found that Gradall was unjustly enriched in the amount of $1,000,000 plus interest when it sold several telescopic fire apparatuses after properly terminating what the jury determined to be an enforceable contract with the plaintiff, a fire truck manufacturer. Gradall is appealing the decision and has reserved the full amount.

Alamo Group Inc.  and Bush Hog, Inc. were added as defendants in 2013 to ongoing litigation by Deere & Company as plaintiff against Bush Hog, LLC (now Duroc, LLC) and Great Plains Manufacturing Incorporated, in which Deere alleged infringement of a mower-related patent. The jury concluded that not only did the defendants not infringe the patent but that the patent was invalid as well. The Company expensed $2,100,000 in legal fees related to this lawsuit in 2013.

Certain assets of the Company contain asbestos that may have to be remediated over time. The Company believes that any subsequent change in the liability associated with the asbestos removal will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The Company is subject to various other federal, state, and local laws affecting its business, as well as a variety of regulations relating to such matters as working conditions, equal employment opportunities, and product safety. A variety of state laws regulate the Company’s contractual relationships with its dealers, some of which impose restrictive standards on the relationship between the Company and its dealers, including events of default, grounds for termination, non-renewal of dealer contracts, and equipment repurchase requirements. The Company believes it is currently in material compliance with all such applicable laws and regulations.