XML 33 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 29, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and contingencies | Commitments and contingencies The Company is involved in litigation from time to time in the regular course of its business. Except as noted below, there are no material legal proceedings pending or known by the Company to be contemplated to which the Company is a party or to which any of its property is subject. Alabama Municipal Litigation In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden, Alabama (the “Gadsden Water Board”) filed an individual complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals containing perfluorinated compounds, including the Company. On October 26, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, alleging diversity of citizenship and fraudulent joinder. The Gadsden Water Board filed a motion to remand the case back to the state court, and the defendants opposed the Gadsden Water Board’s motion. The federal court granted Gadsden Water Board's motion for remand. On October 24, 2017, the Company appealed the federal court's determination that co-defendant Industrial Chemicals, Inc. ("ICI") was properly joined as a party to the case. On February 22, 2018, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ICI's presence in the case deprives the federal court of jurisdiction over the case. In May, 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama (the “Centre Water Board”) filed a very similar complaint to the Gadsden Water Board complaint in the Circuit Court of Cherokee County. On June 19, 2017, the defendants removed this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, again alleging diversity of citizenship and fraudulent joinder. The Centre Water Board filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, and the defendants opposed the Centre Water Board’s motion. The federal court granted Centre Water Board's motion for remand. On December 6, 2017, the Company appealed the federal court's determination that co-defendant ICI was properly joined as a party to that case as well. On January 31, 2018, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ICI's presence in the case deprives the federal court of jurisdiction over the case. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in the Centre Water Board case on November 30, 2017 and a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the Gadsden Water Board case on October 25, 2017. Both motions argued that the courts did not have personal jurisdiction over the Company and that the complaints failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The Centre Water Board court denied one motion on May 15, 2018, and the Gadsden Water Board court denied the other motion on August 13, 2018. On June 19, 2018, the Company filed a petition to the Alabama Supreme Court in the Centre Water Board case, and on September 21, 2018, the Company filed a petition to the Alabama Supreme Court in the Gadsden Water Board case, seeking rulings that the trial courts erred in denying the motions on the personal jurisdiction arguments. Both petitions remain pending. The Company has never manufactured perfluorinated compounds but purchased them for use in the manufacture of its carpets prior to 2007. The Gadsden and Centre Water Boards are not alleging that chemical levels in the Company’s wastewater discharge exceeded legal limits. Instead, the Gadsden and Centre Water Boards are seeking lost profits based on allegations that their customers decreased water purchases, as well as reimbursement for the cost of a filter and punitive damages. Belgian Tax Matter In January 2012, the Company received a €23,789 assessment from the Belgian tax authority related to its year ended December 31, 2008, asserting that the Company had understated its Belgian taxable income for that year. The Company filed a formal protest in the first quarter of 2012 refuting the Belgian tax authority's position. The Belgian tax authority set aside the assessment in the third quarter of 2012 and refunded all related deposits, including interest income of €1,583 earned on such deposits. However, on October 23, 2012, the Belgian tax authority notified the Company of its intent to increase the Company's taxable income for the year ended December 31, 2008 under a revised theory. On December 28, 2012, the Belgian tax authority issued assessments for the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009, in the amounts of €46,135 and €35,567, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed a formal protest during the first quarter of 2013 relating to the new assessments. In September 2013, the Belgian tax authority denied the Company's protests, and the Company has brought these two years before the Court of First Appeal in Bruges. In December 2013, the Belgian tax authority issued additional assessments related to the years ended December 31, 2006, 2007, and 2010, in the amounts of €38,817, €39,635, and €43,117, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed formal protests during the first quarter of 2014, refuting the Belgian tax authority's position for each of the years assessed. In the quarter ended June 28, 2014, the Company received a formal assessment for the year ended December 31, 2008, totaling €30,131, against which the Company also submitted its formal protest. All 4 additional years have been brought before the Court of First Appeal in November 2014. In January of 2015, the Company met with the Court of First Appeal in Bruges, Belgium and agreed with the Belgium tax authorities to consolidate and argue the issues regarding the years 2005 and 2009, and apply the ruling to all of the open years (to the extent there are no additional facts/procedural arguments in the other years). In May 2017, the statute of limitation was extended to include 2011. On January 27, 2016, the Court of First Appeal in Bruges, Belgium ruled in favor of the Company with respect to the calendar years ending December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009. On March 9, 2016, the Belgian tax authority lodged its Notification of Appeal with the Ghent Court of Appeal. On June 13, 2018, the Court of First Appeal in Bruges, Belgium again ruled in favor of the Company with respect to the calendar years ending December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, and December 31, 2010. On August 31, 2018, the Belgian tax authority lodged its Notification of Appeal with the Ghent Court of Appeal. The Company has now received favorable rulings from the Court of First Appeal in Bruges on all calendar years 2005 through 2010, inclusive. The Company continues to disagree with the views of the Belgian tax authority on this matter and will persist in its vigorous defense. Nevertheless, on May 24, 2016, the tax collector representing the Belgian tax authorities imposed a lien on the Company's properties in Wielsbeke (Ooigemstraat and Breestraat), Oostrozebeke (Ingelmunstersteenweg) and Desselgem (Waregemstraat) included in the Flooring ROW segment. The purpose of the lien is to provide security for payment should the Belgian tax authority prevail on its appeal. The lien does not interfere with the Company's operations at these properties. General The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made for probable losses that are reasonably estimable. These contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, in excess of amounts accrued. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or liquidity in a given quarter or year.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration