Commitments and Contingencies |
12 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2017 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies
The Company is from time-to-time subject to various claims, other possible legal actions for product liability and other damages, and other matters arising out of the normal conduct of the Company's business. No significant claims expenses were incurred during 2017, 2016 or 2015, with the exception of the items discussed below. Any legal costs associated with commitments or contingencies are expensed as incurred.
In January 2014, a Metals Segment customer filed suit against Palmer and Synalloy and another unrelated defendant in Texas state court alleging breach of warranty, among other claims. The plaintiff’s claim for damages did not state a dollar amount. This matter arose out of products manufactured and sold by Palmer prior to the Company’s acquisition of all of Palmer's outstanding stock in August 2012. During August and September 2016, the parties to the lawsuit tried the matter in a bench trial in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 333rd Judicial District (the “Court”). On December 31, 2016, the Court entered final judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and Synalloy and against Palmer. The Court ordered Palmer to pay the Plaintiff approximately $8,600,000 in damages, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, and approximately $1,040,000 in attorneys’ fees. The Court ruled Synalloy has no liability to the Plaintiff. The former shareholders of Palmer are contractually bound, pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement by and among Synalloy and the former shareholders dated August 10, 2012, to hold harmless and indemnify Synalloy and Palmer from any and all costs and damages, including the judgment described above and all associated attorneys' fees, arising out of this matter. At December 31, 2016, the Company recorded $11,000,000 in accrued expenses and current assets to reflect the legal liability and corresponding indemnified receivable due from the former shareholders of Palmer. On June 30, 2017, the plaintiff entered into settlement agreements with Palmer/Synalloy and the former shareholders of Palmer, respectively, pursuant to which, the parties agreed to settle and release the judgment in full. On August 31, 2017, the former shareholders of Palmer satisfied the financial conditions specified in their settlement agreement with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed a Release of Final Judgment with the Court. Because the former shareholders of Palmer were contractually bound, pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement by and among Synalloy and the former shareholders dated August 10, 2012, to hold harmless and indemnify Synalloy and Palmer from any and all costs and damages, including the judgment described above and all associated attorneys' fees, arising out of this matter, neither Synalloy nor Palmer contributed to the payments required by the settlement agreements. The legal liability and corresponding indemnified receivable due from the former shareholders of Palmer were reduced to zero at August 31, 2017.
In September 2014, a Metals Segment customer filed suit against Synalloy Fabrication, LLC (discontinued operation) and its surety in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore Division) alleging breach of contract, among other claims. The plaintiff's claim for damages was approximately $3,300,000 plus attorney's fees. This matter arose from a disagreement over the scope of a pipe fabrication project and whether an enforceable contract exists between the parties. On March 11, 2016, the United States District Court of Maryland (Baltimore Division) granted summary judgment regarding liability in favor of the plaintiff by ruling that an enforceable contract existed between the parties and the Company breached the agreement. As a result of this ruling, the remaining issue in the case was the amount of the plaintiff's damages. Consequently, the Company increased the facility closing liability to a level of $3,000,000 for the estimated costs associated with the claim for the year ended December 31, 2015. In June 2016, the matter was settled for damages totaling $3,100,000. As a result, the Company increased the facility closing liability and made a payment of $2,500,000 in June 2016. In September 2016, the remaining balance of $600,000 was paid in full. The amount required to adjust the facility closing reserve as a result of the settlement is included in discontinued operations for 2016 and 2015 in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations.
Other than the environmental contingencies discussed in Note 7 and the matters discussed in this Note 13, management is not currently aware of any other asserted or unasserted matters which could have a significant effect on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company.
|