Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Operating leases

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases amounted to $13.1 million at December 31, 2013 as follows:



Years ending December 31,	(in millions)
2014	$	3.8
2015	$	2.4
2016	$	1.6
2017	$	1.4
2018	$	1.3
Thereafter	$	2.6

Aggregate rental expense for operating leases was $5.2 million, $7.9 million, and $8.2 million for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively.

Purchase Commitments

As of December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, we had $22.0 million , $24.8 million and $13.7 million respectively of non-cancelable purchase commitments with some suppliers for materials and supplies in the normal course of business.

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 $12.1 million and $11.9 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and our weighted average interest rate for these receivables was 5.9% and 6.1% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Under our factoring program in Europe, we may discount receivables with recourse; however, at December 31, 2013, there were no receivables sold with recourse.

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 December 31, 2013 and 2012, we had $3.2 million and $3.4 million, respectively, in outstanding letters of credit in the U.S. Outside the U.S. we had $7.9 million and $8.7 million outstanding letters of credit at December 31, 2013 and 2012, 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 lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers 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 lawn mower containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either the lawn mower or the engine contained within the lawn mower 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 $250,000; however upon signing the new settlement, the difference was refunded to Tecumseh Products Company. The Settlement Agreement was submitted to the court on May 8, 2013 for preliminary approval. On January 9, 2014, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

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. On April 9, 2013, the court partially granted the motion to dismiss with regard to claims for purchasers in the majority of the remaining states. As a result of these rulings, the indirect purchaser class action currently includes claims for plaintiffs in only six states. The indirect purchasers sought to appeal the dismissal of certain claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On September 25, 2013, the Sixth Circuit court dismissed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 controlled by Whirlpool, 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. Whirlpool expert reports were filed for consideration by the court that states the claim is time barred due to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. We intend to continue to vigorously contest the claim.

On March 20, 2013, a proceeding was commenced by Electrolux Home Products Corporation N.V. in the Regional Court of Kiel, Germany against Tecumseh Europe S.A. and several other defendants, jointly and severally. The claim alleges total estimated damages of approximately €63.0 million based on 15% of Electrolux's total purchases in Europe of the relevant compressors, the vast majority of which were purchased from a competitor. We filed our initial response to the claim on August 30, 2013. We intend to vigorously contest the claim. On August 22, 2013, the District Court of Kiel decided to stay the case until the Court of Justice of the European Union issues a decision in another case regarding jurisdictional issues that are also raised in this case.

On December 18, 2013, BSH Boschund Siemens Hausgerate GMBH ("Bosch") sent the company a letter in which it threatened to initiate court proceedings in Germany against Tecumseh unless Tecumseh pays Bosch damages for alleged overcharges relating to its purchases of compressors.

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 our 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.

Environmental Matters

At December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 we had accrued $2.4 million and $2.9 million, respectively, for environmental remediation. Included in the December 31, 2013 balance is an accrual of $1.1 million for the remaining estimated costs associated with remediation activities at our former Tecumseh, Michigan facility. We met with the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") in late 2012, to discuss the overall project at the Site. Based upon this meeting and additional information that was requested by the USEPA, most of the investigation efforts are now expected to be completed in the next 3 - 4 months and most of the remediation system construction efforts are expected to be completed in the next 12 - 15 months. Delays in demolition activities by the current property owner could delay remediation system construction at the site. Some short term delays in investigation efforts have already occurred due to demolition activities. The monitoring activities to demonstrate effectiveness of the remediation systems are anticipated to be completed by the end of 2019.

We were named by the USEPA as a potentially responsible party in connection with the Sheboygan River and Harbor Superfund Site ("SRHS") 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 SRHS 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. Active remediation of the SRHS was completed in 2013 and PRS is currently preparing the final work completion reports. We anticipate that PRS will submit these reports to USEPA in 2014. USEPA is expected to issue a Certificate of Completion for the Site after it has reviewed and approved the final work completion reports.

Now that the remediation and reporting on SRHS is nearing completion, the natural resource trustees (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (collectively, the "Trustees")) will have the opportunity to assess if there are any NRD claims. In September 2012, we were advised that the Sheboygan River Natural Resource Trustees conducted a pre-assessment screen of natural resources damages related to the Sheboygan River and Harbor Site, including the Kohler Landfill Superfund Site and the Campmarina Alternate Superfund Site. An initial meeting with the Wisconsin Department of Justice ("WDOJ") and the Trustees, along with other potentially responsible parties, took place in October 2012 to discuss the next steps in the assessment process and to provide a pathway for the potentially responsible parties to participate in a formal NRD assessment at the site. The meeting was primarily informational in nature. In a letter dated April 19, 2013, but not received by us until May 23, 2013, the Trustees provided notice to us of their intent to perform a formal NRD assessment.

The Trustees sent the May 23, 2013 notice to three parties in addition to us. Neither we, nor any of the other three notified parties, admit that it is liable for any natural resource damages in connection with the SRHS. Further, no allocation of liability among the parties, whether interim or final, has been reached.

At this time, we have not received a Notice of Intent to Sue as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act as a predicate to any lawsuit for natural resources damages by the Trustees. However, we have entered into a tolling agreement with the Trustees to stop any applicable limitations period on their asserted claims for the period from September 15, 2013 to September 15, 2014, "to facilitate settlement negotiations between the Parties." We do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount of our ultimate NRD 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 February 2013, the WDNR granted a "no further action" for the on-site groundwater component of the investigation but required the installation of three additional off-site, down-gradient monitoring wells and two years (six sampling events) of off-site monitoring with the timetable for monitoring beginning with the sampling event conducted in October 2012, in order to demonstrate concentrations are stable and receive full closure from the WDNR. The three additional off-site, down-gradient monitoring wells were installed and all on-site monitoring wells were formally abandoned during the second quarter of 2013. Based upon evaluation of the potential for vapor intrusion at buildings that are located near (but not on) the plant site, we are working with the WDNR to install a vapor mitigation system at one building and to evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion at nine additional properties.

In addition to the above-mentioned sites, we are also currently participating with the USEPA 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.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details