LITIGATION AND CONTINGENCIES

General

The Company is involved in various legal proceedings, including product liability, general liability, workers’ compensation liability, employment, commercial and intellectual property litigation, which have arisen in the normal course of operations. The Company is insured for product liability, general liability, workers’ compensation, employer’s liability, property damage and other insurable risk required by law or contract, with retained liability or deductibles. The Company records and maintains an estimated liability in the amount of management’s estimate of the Company’s aggregate exposure for such retained liabilities and deductibles. For such retained liabilities and deductibles, the Company determines its exposure based on probable loss estimations, which requires such losses to be both probable and the amount or range of probable loss to be estimable. The Company believes it has made appropriate and adequate reserves and accruals for its current contingencies and the likelihood of a material loss beyond amounts accrued is remote. The Company believes the outcome of such matters, individually and in aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial statements as a whole. However, outcomes of lawsuits cannot be predicted and, if determined adversely, could ultimately result in the Company incurring significant liabilities which could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations.

Securities and Stockholder Derivative Lawsuits

In 2010, the Company received complaints seeking certification of class action lawsuits as follows:


•	A consolidated class action complaint for violations of securities laws was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.

•

A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April 12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits, which generally cover the time period from February 2008 to February 2009, allege violations of federal securities laws and Delaware law claiming, among other things, that certain of the Company’s SEC filings and other public statements contained false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they purchased the Company’s securities and that there were breaches of fiduciary duties. The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company’s shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the Company’s corporate governance procedures in addition to unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in its favor.

On March 31, 2018, the securities lawsuit was dismissed against all of the named defendants except Mr. Riordan and the Company. In addition, certain claims were also narrowed. However, as all claims against Mr. Riordan were not dismissed, the case continued against both Mr. Riordan and, as a result, the Company as well. While the Company continues to believe that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with all applicable laws, on February 13, 2019, the plaintiffs and the Company advised the court that the parties have agreed in principle to a settlement of the securities lawsuit, subject to the court’s approval, and are beginning the process of drafting preliminary settlement papers for the court’s review and preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and notice process. The proposed settlement amount would be covered by the Company’s insurance policies and will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial results. However, if the parties are not able to reach a final settlement of the claims, or if the court were to fail to approve a settlement, and the Company were to ultimately receive an adverse judgment in excess of the Company’s insurance policies, it could result in the Company incurring significant liabilities.

The stockholder derivative action requires that the plaintiff own shares at the time of the alleged action continuously throughout the pendency of the case. In September of 2018, the plaintiff’s counsel notified the Company that its named plaintiff no longer owned shares of Terex. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to replace the plaintiff in this case with a new plaintiff. The Company filed a motion objecting to the substitution on several grounds as it is the Company’s belief that the proposed substitute plaintiff does not meet the legal requirements to act as plaintiff in this action. To date, the Court has not rendered a decision on these motions. The Company believes that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with applicable laws with respect to this matter. This matter is covered by the Company’s insurance. However, the outcome of this lawsuit cannot be predicted and, if the Company were to receive an adverse judgment in excess of the Company’s insurance policies, it could ultimately result in the Company incurring significant liabilities.

Demag Cranes AG Appraisal Proceedings

In connection with the Company’s purchase of Demag Cranes AG (“DCAG”) in 2011, certain former shareholders of DCAG initiated appraisal proceedings relating to (i) a domination and profit loss transfer agreement between DCAG and Terex Germany GmbH & Co. KG (the “DPLA Proceeding”) and (ii) the squeeze out of the former DCAG shareholders (the “Squeeze out Proceeding”) alleging that the Company did not pay fair value for the shares of DCAG. In April 2018, the Company reached an agreement with the former shareholders of DCAG to settle the DPLA Proceeding for an amount not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The Squeeze out Proceeding will continue and is still in the relatively early stages. While the Company believes the position of the former shareholders of DCAG is without merit and is vigorously opposing it, no assurance can be given as to the final resolution of the Squeeze out Proceeding or that the Company will not ultimately be required to make an additional payment as a result of such dispute.

Other

The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings which have arisen in the normal course of its operations. The Company has recorded provisions for estimated losses in circumstances where a loss is probable and the amount or range of possible amounts of the loss is estimable.

Credit Guarantees

Customers of the Company from time to time may fund the acquisition of the Company’s equipment through third-party finance companies. In certain instances, the Company may provide a credit guarantee to the finance company, by which the Company agrees to make payments to the finance company should the customer default. The maximum liability of the Company is generally limited to its customer’s remaining payments due to the finance company at time of default.

As of December 31, 2018 and 2017, the Company’s maximum exposure to such credit guarantees was $59.2 million and $49.2 million, respectively. Terms of these guarantees coincide with the financing arranged by the customer and generally do not exceed five years. Given the Company’s position as original equipment manufacturer and its knowledge of end markets, the Company, when called upon to fulfill a guarantee, generally has been able to liquidate the financed equipment at a minimal loss, if any, to the Company.

There can be no assurance that historical credit default experience will be indicative of future results. The Company’s ability to recover losses experienced from its guarantees may be affected by economic conditions in effect at the time of loss.

Residual Value Guarantees

The Company issues residual value guarantees under sales-type leases. A residual value guarantee involves a guarantee that a piece of equipment will have a minimum fair market value at a future date if certain conditions are met by the customer. Maximum exposure for residual value guarantees issued by the Company totaled $2.7 million and $4.2 million as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. The Company is generally able to mitigate a portion risk associated with these guarantees because the maturity of guarantees is staggered, limiting the amount of used equipment entering the marketplace at any one time.

The Company has recorded an aggregate liability within Other current liabilities and Other non-current liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet of $3.8 million and $4.3 million as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively, for estimated fair value of all guarantees provided.

There can be no assurance the Company’s historical experience in used equipment markets will be indicative of future results. The Company’s ability to recover losses experienced from its guarantees may be affected by economic conditions in used equipment markets at the time of loss.