Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Accounts Receivable A portion of accounts receivable at our Brazilian subsidiary are sold with limited recourse at a discount, which creates a contingent liability for the business. Discounted receivables sold with limited recourse were $14.2 million and $10.1 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, and the discount rate was 6.1% and 4.7% at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Under our factoring program in Europe, we may discount receivables with recourse; however, at September 30, 2012, there were no receivables sold with recourse. Purchase Commitments As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had $24.2 million and $13.7 million, respectively of non-cancelable purchase commitments with some suppliers for materials and supplies in the normal course of business. Letters of credit We issue letters of credit in the normal course of business as required by some vendor contracts and insurance policies. As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had $3.4 million and $3.5 million, respectively, in outstanding letters of credit in the U.S. Outside the U.S. we had $7.7 million and $9.5 million outstanding letters of credit at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Litigation General We are party to litigation in the ordinary course of business. Litigation occasionally involves claims for punitive as well as compensatory damages arising out of use of our products. Although we are self-insured to some extent, we maintain insurance against certain product liability losses. We are also subject to administrative proceedings with respect to claims involving the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment. Some of these claims assert damages and liability for remedial investigation and clean-up costs. We are also typically involved in commercial and employee disputes in the ordinary course of business. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, and some may be disposed of unfavorably to us, management considers that appropriate reserves have been established and, except as described below, does not believe that the disposition of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, cash flows or results of operations. With the exception of the settlement of the working capital adjustment made with the purchaser of our former Engine & Power Train business segment, our reserves for contingent liabilities have not historically differed materially from estimates upon their final outcomes. However, discovery of new facts, developments in litigation, or settlement negotiations could cause estimates to differ materially from current expectations in the future. Except as disclosed below, we do not believe we have any pending loss contingencies that are probable or reasonably possible of having a material impact to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Canadian Horsepower label litigation On March 19, 2010 Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against us and several other defendants (including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the horsepower of lawnmower engines and lawnmowers in violation of the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for their own use and not for resale, a lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either the lawnmower or the engine contained within the lawnmower was manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors between January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment. Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs and equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock Purchase Agreement with them. At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows. On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish against us and several other defendants (including those listed above) advancing allegations similar to those outlined immediately above. Plaintiffs seek undetermined monetary damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, and equitable relief. As stated above, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock Purchase Agreement with them. At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows. Compressor industry antitrust investigation On February 17, 2009, we received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) and a formal request for information from the Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil (“SDE”) related to investigations by these authorities into possible anti-competitive pricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressor industry. The European Commission began an investigation of the industry on the same day. We have entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with the DOJ under the Antitrust Division’s Corporate Leniency Policy. Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to not bring any criminal prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect to the investigation against us as long as we, among other things, continue our full cooperation in the investigation. We have received similar conditional immunity from the European Commission and the SDE, and have received or requested immunity or leniency from competition authorities in other jurisdictions. On December 7, 2011, the European Commission announced it had reached a cartel settlement under which certain of our competitors received fines for the conduct investigated. As a result of our conditional immunity, we were not assessed any fine. While we have taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and other sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions brought by private plaintiffs. The public disclosure of these investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups. All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) procedures. As previously reported, Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh Compressor Company, Tecumseh do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do Brasil U.S.A. LLC entered into a settlement agreement with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs on June 24, 2010 to resolve claims in the action in order to avoid the costs and distraction of this ongoing class action litigation. On June 13, 2011, the Court issued an order denying without prejudice a motion for preliminary approval of our proposed settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs because the time frame and products covered by the proposed settlement class were inconsistent with the Court’s rulings of the same date granting, in part, a motion by the other defendants to dismiss claims by the direct purchaser plaintiffs. The direct purchaser plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Master Complaint to reflect the court’s rulings on the motion to dismiss which allowed them to cover fractional compressors, or compressors of less than one horsepower, used for refrigeration purposes (but excluding those used for air conditioning) purchased from February 25, 2005 to December 31, 2008 (the "Covered Products"). On October 15, 2012 we entered into a new settlement agreement with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs (the "Settlement Agreement"), which must be approved by the court. The Settlement Agreement was made by and between us and our subsidiaries and affiliates, and plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Covered Products in the United States, its territories and possessions, directly from a defendant. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for plaintiffs' full release of all U.S. direct-purchaser claims against us relating to refrigeration compressors, we agreed to pay a settlement amount of $7.0 million and, in addition, agreed to pay up to $150,000 for notice and administrative costs associated with administering the settlement. These costs were recorded as an expense in the second quarter ended June 30, 2010 (and paid in the third quarter of 2010) in the line item captioned "Impairments, restructuring charges, and other items". Under the original agreement, administrative costs were recorded as $250,000; however upon signing the new settlement the difference was refunded to Tecumseh Products Company. For the remaining indirect purchaser class actions in the United States, a consolidated amended complaint was filed on June 30, 2010, and we filed a motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser class action on August 30, 2010. On June 7, 2012, the court partially granted a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with regard to claims for purchasers in several states in which the complaint identified no named plaintiff. Supplemental briefs on the remaining issues raised in motions to dismiss have been submitted to the court, which has not yet ruled on the issues. In Canada, the class actions are still in a preliminary stage. Persons who engage in price-fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust law generally are jointly and severally liable to private claimants for three times the actual damages caused by the joint conduct. As a conditional amnesty recipient, however, our civil liability will be limited pursuant to the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, as amended (“ACPERA”). As long as we continue to cooperate with the civil claimants and comply with the requirements of ACPERA, we will be liable only for actual, as opposed to treble, damages and will not be jointly and severally liable for claims against other participants in the alleged anticompetitive conduct being investigated. On March 12, 2012, a proceeding was commenced by Electrolux do Brasil S.A., in the Civil Division of the State District Court in São Paulo, Brazil, against Tecumseh Do Brasil Ltda. and two other defendants, jointly and severally. The complaint alleges that Electrolux suffered damages from over pricing due to the activities of a cartel of which we and Whirlpool were members. The complaint states that the amount in controversy is Brazilian Real 1,000,000. However, Electrolux would be entitled to recover any damages it is able to prove in the proceeding, in the event that they exceed this amount. We timely filed opposition to this claim. Electroluxs' expert reports were filed for consideration by the court that states the claim is time barred due to the expiration of the applicable statue of limitations. We intend to continue to vigorously contest the claim. Due to uncertainty of our liability in these cases, or other cases that may be brought in the future, we have not recognized any impact in our financial statements, other than for the claims subject to the Settlement Agreement. Our ultimate liability or the amount of any potential future settlements or resolution of these claims, if any, could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows. We anticipate that we will incur additional expenses as we continue to cooperate with the investigations and defend the lawsuits. We expense all legal costs as incurred in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Such expenses and any restitution payments could negatively impact our reputation, compromise our ability to compete and result in financial losses in an amount which could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows. Platinum On November 20, 2009 Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation (“Snowstorm”), a Delaware corporation affiliated with Platinum Equity Capital Partners, L.P. (“Platinum”), filed a lawsuit against Tecumseh Products Company, Alix Partners LLP, AP Services LLC and James Bonsall in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging breach of contract, violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation in connection with Snowstorm’s purchase of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. (collectively “Tecumseh Power”) in November, 2007. At the time of the sale, Tecumseh Power Company was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tecumseh Products Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of Tecumseh gas-powered engines used in snow throwers, lawnmowers, generators, power washers and augers, among other applications. Snowstorm sought approximately $27.0 million (inclusive of interest and litigation expenses), punitive damages and a declaratory judgment that we are obligated to indemnify Snowstorm for certain other claims and losses allegedly related to the subject matter of the complaint. On April 20, 2012, the parties reached an agreement settling this lawsuit. Plaintiff has dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice and released each of the defendants in exchange for payment of $13.5 million. We were not responsible to pay any portion of the settlement. The settlement was funded by our and James Bonsall’s Directors and Officers insurance carriers under a reservation of rights and by the defendants other than us. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, we will continue to be responsible under the Stock Purchase Agreement for certain third-party indemnity obligations which predate the sale of Tecumseh Power Company, including the horsepower labeling lawsuits. We have also received a total of $1.2 million of reimbursements from our Directors and Officers insurer for our litigation expenses in connection with this lawsuit. Separately, the defendants agreed to mutual releases in exchange for the payment to us of $1.7 million in the second quarter of 2012, of which $1.3 million is recorded in “Other income, net” and $0.4 million is recorded in “Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax” in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. Environmental Matters At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 we had accrued $2.5 million and $3.6 million, respectively, for environmental remediation. Included in the September 30, 2012 balance is an accrual of $1.1 million for the remaining estimated costs associated with remediation activities at our former Tecumseh, Michigan facility. Investigation and remediation efforts are ongoing, with most of the investigation efforts completed in the next 6 months and most of the remediation efforts will be completed in the next 9-12 months. The monitoring activities are anticipated to be completed by the end of 2019. We were named by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a potentially responsible party in connection with the Sheboygan River and Harbor Superfund Site in Wisconsin. In 2003, with the cooperation of the USEPA, we and Pollution Risk Services, LLC (“PRS”) entered into a Liability Transfer and Assumption Agreement (the “Liability Transfer Agreement”). Under the terms of the Liability Transfer Agreement, PRS assumed all of our responsibilities, obligations and liabilities for remediation of the entire Site and the associated costs, except for potential future liabilities related to Natural Resource Damages (“NRD”). Also, as required by the Liability Transfer Agreement, we purchased Remediation Cost Cap insurance, with a 30 year term, in the amount of $100.0 million and Environmental Site Liability insurance in the amount of $20.0 million. We believe such insurance coverage will provide sufficient assurance for completion of the responsibilities, obligations and liabilities assumed by PRS under the Liability Transfer Agreement. In conjunction with the Liability Transfer Agreement, we completed the transfer of title to the Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin property to PRS. Remediation is expected to be completed in 2012 or 2013. After the remediation is complete at the Site, the natural resource trustees (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) will have the opportunity to assess if there are any NRD and could assess a fine at that time. We received a letter from the State of Wisconsin Department of Justice ("WDOJ") on September 28, 2012. We have been advised that the Sheboygan River Natural Resource Trustee Council has conducted a preliminary natural resources damages assessment related to the Sheboygan River and Harbor Site, including the Kohler Landfill Supersite and the Campmarina Alternate Superfund Site. An initial meeting with the WDOJ and trustees, along with other potentially responsible parties, took place in October 2012 to discuss next steps in the assessment process and to provide us an opportunity to participate in assessment activities at the Site. The meeting was primarily informational in nature. We anticipate a follow-up meeting in 6 months. At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential future claims, but the amount could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows. . In cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“WDNR”), we also conducted an investigation of soil and groundwater contamination at our Grafton, Wisconsin plant. In 2010, the remainder of the work required on-site by the WDNR was completed subject to two years of monitoring to be completed by the end of 2012. The monitoring results showed no contamination in the building except for one small area which showed values that exceeded initial values sought by the WDNR. We completed the remediation of this small area in the fourth quarter of 2010. We anticipate the closure of the on-site groundwater component of the investigation by the WDNR in 2013. We now estimate that the off-site groundwater monitoring for the off-site groundwater component of the investigation will require at least two years of semi-annual monitoring, starting in April 2013, in order to demonstrate concentrations are stable and receive closure from the WDNR. In addition to the above-mentioned sites, we are also currently participating with the EPA and various state agencies at certain other sites to determine the nature and extent of any remedial action that may be necessary with regard to such other sites. As these matters continue toward final resolution, amounts in excess of those already provided may be necessary to discharge us from our obligations for these sites. Such amounts, depending on their amount and timing, could be material to reported net income in the particular quarter or period that they are recorded. In addition, the ultimate resolution of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, could be material to the consolidated financial statements.

Commitments and Contingencies

Accounts Receivable

A portion of accounts receivable at our Brazilian subsidiary are sold with limited recourse at a discount, which creates a contingent liability for the business. Discounted receivables sold with limited recourse were $14.2 million and $10.1 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, and the discount rate was 6.1% and 4.7% at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Under our factoring program in Europe, we may discount receivables with recourse; however, at September 30, 2012, there were no receivables sold with recourse.

Purchase Commitments

As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had $24.2 million and $13.7 million, respectively of non-cancelable purchase commitments with some suppliers for materials and supplies in the normal course of business.

Letters of credit

We issue letters of credit in the normal course of business as required by some vendor contracts and insurance policies. As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had $3.4 million and $3.5 million, respectively, in outstanding letters of credit in the U.S. Outside the U.S. we had $7.7 million and $9.5 million outstanding letters of credit at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

Litigation

General

We are party to litigation in the ordinary course of business. Litigation occasionally involves claims for punitive as well as compensatory damages arising out of use of our products. Although we are self-insured to some extent, we maintain insurance against certain product liability losses. We are also subject to administrative proceedings with respect to claims involving the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment. Some of these claims assert damages and liability for remedial investigation and clean-up costs. We are also typically involved in commercial and employee disputes in the ordinary course of business. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, and some may be disposed of unfavorably to us, management considers that appropriate reserves have been established and, except as described below, does not believe that the disposition of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, cash flows or results of operations. With the exception of the settlement of the working capital adjustment made with the purchaser of our former Engine & Power Train business segment, our reserves for contingent liabilities have not historically differed materially from estimates upon their final outcomes. However, discovery of new facts, developments in litigation, or settlement negotiations could cause estimates to differ materially from current expectations in the future. Except as disclosed below, we do not believe we have any pending loss contingencies that are probable or reasonably possible of having a material impact to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Canadian Horsepower label litigation

On March 19, 2010 Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against us and several other defendants (including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the horsepower of lawnmower engines and lawnmowers in violation of the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for their own use and not for resale, a lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either the lawnmower or the engine contained within the lawnmower was manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors between January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment. Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs and equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock Purchase Agreement with them.

At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows.

On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish against us and several other defendants (including those listed above) advancing allegations similar to those outlined immediately above. Plaintiffs seek undetermined monetary damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, and equitable relief. As stated above, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock Purchase Agreement with them.

Compressor industry antitrust investigation

On February 17, 2009, we received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) and a formal request for information from the Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil (“SDE”) related to investigations by these authorities into possible anti-competitive pricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressor industry. The European Commission began an investigation of the industry on the same day.

We have entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with the DOJ under the Antitrust Division’s Corporate Leniency Policy. Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to not bring any criminal prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect to the investigation against us as long as we, among other things, continue our full cooperation in the investigation. We have received similar conditional immunity from the European Commission and the SDE, and have received or requested immunity or leniency from competition authorities in other jurisdictions. On December 7, 2011, the European Commission announced it had reached a cartel settlement under which certain of our competitors received fines for the conduct investigated. As a result of our conditional immunity, we were not assessed any fine.

While we have taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and other sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions brought by private plaintiffs. The public disclosure of these investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups. All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) procedures.

As previously reported, Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh Compressor Company, Tecumseh do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do Brasil U.S.A. LLC entered into a settlement agreement with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs on June 24, 2010 to resolve claims in the action in order to avoid the costs and distraction of this ongoing class action litigation.

On June 13, 2011, the Court issued an order denying without prejudice a motion for preliminary approval of our proposed settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs because the time frame and products covered by the proposed settlement class were inconsistent with the Court’s rulings of the same date granting, in part, a motion by the other defendants to dismiss claims by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Master Complaint to reflect the court’s rulings on the motion to dismiss which allowed them to cover fractional compressors, or compressors of less than one horsepower, used for refrigeration purposes (but excluding those used for air conditioning) purchased from February 25, 2005 to December 31, 2008 (the "Covered Products").

On October 15, 2012 we entered into a new settlement agreement with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs (the "Settlement Agreement"), which must be approved by the court. The Settlement Agreement was made by and between us and our subsidiaries and affiliates, and plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Covered Products in the United States, its territories and possessions, directly from a defendant. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for plaintiffs' full release of all U.S. direct-purchaser claims against us relating to refrigeration compressors, we agreed to pay a settlement amount of $7.0 million and, in addition, agreed to pay up to $150,000 for notice and administrative costs associated with administering the settlement. These costs were recorded as an expense in the second quarter ended June 30, 2010 (and paid in the third quarter of 2010) in the line item captioned "Impairments, restructuring charges, and other items". Under the original agreement, administrative costs were recorded as $250,000; however upon signing the new settlement the difference was refunded to Tecumseh Products Company.

For the remaining indirect purchaser class actions in the United States, a consolidated amended complaint was filed on June 30, 2010, and we filed a motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser class action on August 30, 2010. On June 7, 2012, the court partially granted a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with regard to claims for purchasers in several states in which the complaint identified no named plaintiff. Supplemental briefs on the remaining issues raised in motions to dismiss have been submitted to the court, which has not yet ruled on the issues. In Canada, the class actions are still in a preliminary stage.

Persons who engage in price-fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust law generally are jointly and severally liable to private claimants for three times the actual damages caused by the joint conduct. As a conditional amnesty recipient, however, our civil liability will be limited pursuant to the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, as amended (“ACPERA”). As long as we continue to cooperate with the civil claimants and comply with the requirements of ACPERA, we will be liable only for actual, as opposed to treble, damages and will not be jointly and severally liable for claims against other participants in the alleged anticompetitive conduct being investigated.

On March 12, 2012, a proceeding was commenced by Electrolux do Brasil S.A., in the Civil Division of the State District Court in São Paulo, Brazil, against Tecumseh Do Brasil Ltda. and two other defendants, jointly and severally. The complaint alleges that Electrolux suffered damages from over pricing due to the activities of a cartel of which we and Whirlpool were members. The complaint states that the amount in controversy is Brazilian Real 1,000,000. However, Electrolux would be entitled to recover any damages it is able to prove in the proceeding, in the event that they exceed this amount. We timely filed opposition to this claim. Electroluxs' expert reports were filed for consideration by the court that states the claim is time barred due to the expiration of the applicable statue of limitations. We intend to continue to vigorously contest the claim.

Due to uncertainty of our liability in these cases, or other cases that may be brought in the future, we have not recognized any impact in our financial statements, other than for the claims subject to the Settlement Agreement. Our ultimate liability or the amount of any potential future settlements or resolution of these claims, if any, could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows.

We anticipate that we will incur additional expenses as we continue to cooperate with the investigations and defend the lawsuits. We expense all legal costs as incurred in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Such expenses and any restitution payments could negatively impact our reputation, compromise our ability to compete and result in financial losses in an amount which could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows.

Platinum

On November 20, 2009 Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation (“Snowstorm”), a Delaware corporation affiliated with Platinum Equity Capital Partners, L.P. (“Platinum”), filed a lawsuit against Tecumseh Products Company, Alix Partners LLP, AP Services LLC and James Bonsall in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging breach of contract, violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation in connection with Snowstorm’s purchase of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. (collectively “Tecumseh Power”) in November, 2007. At the time of the sale, Tecumseh Power Company was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tecumseh Products Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of Tecumseh gas-powered engines used in snow throwers, lawnmowers, generators, power washers and augers, among other applications. Snowstorm sought approximately $27.0 million (inclusive of interest and litigation expenses), punitive damages and a declaratory judgment that we are obligated to indemnify Snowstorm for certain other claims and losses allegedly related to the subject matter of the complaint.

On April 20, 2012, the parties reached an agreement settling this lawsuit. Plaintiff has dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice and released each of the defendants in exchange for payment of $13.5 million. We were not responsible to pay any portion of the settlement. The settlement was funded by our and James Bonsall’s Directors and Officers insurance carriers under a reservation of rights and by the defendants other than us. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, we will continue to be responsible under the Stock Purchase Agreement for certain third-party indemnity obligations which predate the sale of Tecumseh Power Company, including the horsepower labeling lawsuits. We have also received a total of $1.2 million of reimbursements from our Directors and Officers insurer for our litigation expenses in connection with this lawsuit.

Separately, the defendants agreed to mutual releases in exchange for the payment to us of $1.7 million in the second quarter of 2012, of which $1.3 million is recorded in “Other income, net” and $0.4 million is recorded in “Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax” in our Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Environmental Matters

At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 we had accrued $2.5 million and $3.6 million, respectively, for environmental remediation. Included in the September 30, 2012 balance is an accrual of $1.1 million for the remaining estimated costs associated with remediation activities at our former Tecumseh, Michigan facility. Investigation and remediation efforts are ongoing, with most of the investigation efforts completed in the next 6 months and most of the remediation efforts will be completed in the next 9-12 months. The monitoring activities are anticipated to be completed by the end of 2019.

We were named by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a potentially responsible party in connection with the Sheboygan River and Harbor Superfund Site in Wisconsin. In 2003, with the cooperation of the USEPA, we and Pollution Risk Services, LLC (“PRS”) entered into a Liability Transfer and Assumption Agreement (the “Liability Transfer Agreement”). Under the terms of the Liability Transfer Agreement, PRS assumed all of our responsibilities, obligations and liabilities for remediation of the entire Site and the associated costs, except for potential future liabilities related to Natural Resource Damages (“NRD”). Also, as required by the Liability Transfer Agreement, we purchased Remediation Cost Cap insurance, with a 30 year term, in the amount of $100.0 million and Environmental Site Liability insurance in the amount of $20.0 million. We believe such insurance coverage will provide sufficient assurance for completion of the responsibilities, obligations and liabilities assumed by PRS under the Liability Transfer Agreement. In conjunction with the Liability Transfer Agreement, we completed the transfer of title to the Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin property to PRS. Remediation is expected to be completed in 2012 or 2013. After the remediation is complete at the Site, the natural resource trustees (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) will have the opportunity to assess if there are any NRD and could assess a fine at that time. We received a letter from the State of Wisconsin Department of Justice ("WDOJ") on September 28, 2012. We have been advised that the Sheboygan River Natural Resource Trustee Council has conducted a preliminary natural resources damages assessment related to the Sheboygan River and Harbor Site, including the Kohler Landfill Supersite and the Campmarina Alternate Superfund Site. An initial meeting with the WDOJ and trustees, along with other potentially responsible parties, took place in October 2012 to discuss next steps in the assessment process and to provide us an opportunity to participate in assessment activities at the Site. The meeting was primarily informational in nature. We anticipate a follow-up meeting in 6 months. At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential future claims, but the amount could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows. .

In cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“WDNR”), we also conducted an investigation of soil and groundwater contamination at our Grafton, Wisconsin plant. In 2010, the remainder of the work required on-site by the WDNR was completed subject to two years of monitoring to be completed by the end of 2012. The monitoring results showed no contamination in the building except for one small area which showed values that exceeded initial values sought by the WDNR. We completed the remediation of this small area in the fourth quarter of 2010. We anticipate the closure of the on-site groundwater component of the investigation by the WDNR in 2013. We now estimate that the off-site groundwater monitoring for the off-site groundwater component of the investigation will require at least two years of semi-annual monitoring, starting in April 2013, in order to demonstrate concentrations are stable and receive closure from the WDNR.

In addition to the above-mentioned sites, we are also currently participating with the EPA and various state agencies at certain other sites to determine the nature and extent of any remedial action that may be necessary with regard to such other sites. As these matters continue toward final resolution, amounts in excess of those already provided may be necessary to discharge us from our obligations for these sites. Such amounts, depending on their amount and timing, could be material to reported net income in the particular quarter or period that they are recorded. In addition, the ultimate resolution of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, could be material to the consolidated financial statements.