Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

13. Contingencies 

Legal Proceedings

        On April 30, 2010, CDTi received a complaint from the Hartford, Connecticut office of the U.S. Department of Labor (“U.S. DOL”) under Section 806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2001, Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, alleging that a former employee had been subject to discriminatory employment practices. CDTi’s Board of Directors terminated the employee’s employment on April 19, 2010. The complainant in this proceeding does not demand specific relief. However, the statute provides that a prevailing employee shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including compensatory damages, which may be reinstatement, back pay with interest, front pay, and special damages such as attorney’s and expert witness fees. CDTi responded on June 14, 2010, denying the allegations of the complaint. On March 29, 2011, the U.S. DOL investigator assigned to this matter requested information and documentation regarding the former employee’s allegations and the Company provided responsive documents as requested.  The Company also responded to additional requests from the U.S. DOL regarding electronic correspondence.  On October 6, 2011, the U.S. DOL investigator requested that the Company provide additional information and requested interviews with certain individuals.  The Company responded to those requests. On April 16, 2012, the U.S. DOL requested that the Company take part in non-binding mediation with the former employee. The Company has granted that request, but the former employee declined to participate in mediation.  On July 17, 2012, the U.S. DOL conducted interviews of several former CDTi officers.  On July 31, 2012, the Company submitted Supplemental Briefing to the U.S. DOL pertaining to the protections and applicability of Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  The U.S. DOL’s investigation is ongoing.  Based upon current information, management, after consultation with legal counsel defending the Company’s interests, believes the ultimate disposition will have no material effect upon its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

        BP Products North America (“BP”), a subsidiary of British Petroleum (BP p.l.c.) has made claims against JM as the parent company of and purchaser of AUS, pertaining to the Whiting Refinery SPS NOx Reduction Project.  BP alleges JM is liable for default damages and various other set-offs to the contract price and has retained a significant portion of the contract amount, as well as made claims for additional damages.  JM maintains that it fully performed its obligations under the contract, and BP has acted in bad faith and has inappropriately withheld the contract proceeds and is further liable for various other damages.  On May 12, 2010, JM tendered to the Company a claim for indemnification under the Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 1, 2009, among JM, CSI and AUS.  A recent mediation did not result in a settlement.  On May 14, 2012, JM filed a lawsuit in California state court alleging breach of contract.  On June 25, 2012, BP removed the case to federal court.  On June 29, 2012, BP filed their Answer and Counterclaimed against JM for Breach of Contract.  Discovery is underway. As litigation is still in early stages and discovery is only partially underway, the Company cannot provide a reasonable range of possible outcomes.

        In addition to the foregoing, the Company is involved in legal proceedings from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. Management does not believe that any of these claims and proceedings against it is likely to have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.    

Sales and Use Tax Audit

        The Company is undergoing a sales and use tax audit by the State of California on AUS for the period of 2007 through 2009. The audit has identified a project performed by the Company during that time period for which sales tax was not collected and remitted and for which the State of California asserts that proper documentation of resale may not have been obtained and that the Company owes sales tax of $1.3 million. The Company contends and believes that it received sufficient and proper documentation from its customer to support not collecting and remitting sales tax from that customer and is actively disputing the audit report with the State of California. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for this matter as the Company does not assess a loss as being probable. Should the Company not prevail in this matter, it has certain indemnifications from its customer related to sales tax and would pursue reimbursement from the customer for all assessments from the State.