XML 32 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.6.0.2
Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies
 
Leases
 
Certain properties occupied by the Company are leased. The leases expire at various dates through 2026 and generally require the Company to assume the obligations for insurance, property taxes and maintenance of the facilities.
 
Rental expense for 2016, 2015 and 2014 with respect to all leased property was approximately $5.9 million, $6.6 million and $6.9 million, respectively.
 
At December 31, 2016, minimum rental commitments under all non-cancelable leases were as follows:
 
(in thousands) 
2017
$
5,857

2018
4,539

2019
3,335

2020
2,738

2021
1,822

Thereafter
2,966

Total
$
21,257


 
Some of these minimum rental commitments contain renewal options and provide for periodic rental adjustments based on changes in the consumer price index or current market rental rates. Other rental commitments provide options to cancel early without penalty. Future minimum rental payments, under the earliest cancellation options, are included in minimum rental commitments in the table above.

Other Contractual Obligations
 
Purchase obligations consist of commitments primarily related to the acquisition, construction or expansion of facilities and equipment, consulting agreements, and minimum purchase quantities of certain raw materials. The Company is not a party to any long-term supply contracts with respect to the purchase of raw materials or finished goods. Debt interest obligations include annual facility fees on the Company’s primary line-of-credit facility. Interest on line-of-credit facilities was estimated based on historical borrowings and repayment patterns.
 
At December 31, 2016, other contractual obligations were as follows:

(in thousands) 
As of December 31, 2016
Debt Interest Obligations
 
Purchase Obligations
 
Total
2017
$
450

 
$
33,222

 
$
33,672

2018
450

 
847

 
1,297

2019
450

 
104

 
554

2020
450

 
96

 
546

2021
250

 
96

 
346

Thereafter

 

 

Total
$
2,050

 
$
34,365

 
$
36,415


 
Employee Relations
 
Approximately 20% of the Company’s employees are represented by labor unions and are covered by collective bargaining agreements. The Company’s facility in Stockton, California, is also a union facility with two collective bargaining agreements, which also cover tool and die craftsmen and maintenance workers and sheetmetal workers, respectively. These two contracts will expire in July and September 2019, respectively. The Company’s facility in San Bernardino County, California, has two of the Company's collective bargaining agreements, one with tool and die craftsmen and maintenance workers, and the other with sheetmetal workers. These two contracts expire in February 2017 and June 2018, respectively. The Company expects to agree with the San Bernardino tool and die craftsmen and maintenance workers union to extend the existing labor union contract that expires in February 2017, while the parties are negotiating a new agreement. The Company has not begun negotiations to extend the sheetmetal workers union labor contract that expires in June 2018. The Company believes that, even if new agreements are not reached before the existing labor union contracts expire, it is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s ability to provide products to customers or on the Company’s profitability.
 
Environmental
 
The Company’s policy with regard to environmental liabilities is to accrue for future environmental assessments and remediation costs when information becomes available that indicates that it is probable that the Company is liable for any related claims and assessments and the amount of the liability is reasonably estimable. The Company does not believe that any such matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
 
Litigation
 
From time to time, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings and other matters arising in the normal course of business.  Corrosion, hydrogen enbrittlement, cracking, material hardness, wood pressure-treating chemicals, misinstallations, misuse, design and assembly flaws, manufacturing defects, labeling defects, product formula defects, inaccurate chemical mixes, adulteration, environmental conditions, or other factors can contribute to failure of fasteners, connectors, anchors, adhesives, specialty chemicals, such as fiber reinforced polymers, and tool products.  In addition, inaccuracies may occur in product information, descriptions and instructions found in catalogs, packaging, data sheets, and the Company’s website.

As of February 28, 2017, the Company is not a party to any legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the Company’s business, which the Company expects individually or in the aggregate to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Nonetheless, the resolution of any claim or litigation is subject to inherent uncertainty and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Potential Third-Party Claims

Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., Civil No. 11-1-1522-07, was filed in the Hawaii First Circuit court on July 20, 2011. The Nishimura case involves claims by homeowners at a Honolulu development, Ewa by Gentry, related to alleged corrosion of strap-tie holdowns and mud-sill anchor products supplied by the Company. Ewa by Gentry consists of approximately 2,400 homes.

The Company is not currently a party to the Nishimura case. The plaintiff homeowners originally sued the developer Gentry Homes, Ltd. (“Gentry”) as well as the Company. In 2012 and 2013, the Hawaii First Circuit granted the Company’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, resulting in the dismissal of all of the plaintiff homeowners’ claims against the Company, and the Company is not currently a party to the proceedings. The dismissed claims against the Company remain subject to potential appeal by the plaintiffs. Further, Gentry may in the future seek to sue the Company for indemnity or contribution if Gentry is ultimately found liable for any loss suffered by the plaintiff homeowners.

The Company initially understood from Gentry there were no significant damages claims related to Ewa by Gentry development. In May 2015, the plaintiff homeowners filed a second amended complaint to name a new representative plaintiff because the original representative plaintiffs had not suffered damage. In August 2016, Gentry advised the Company for the first time that other plaintiff homeowners had documented serious corrosion of mudsill anchors and strap-tie holdowns in a substantial number of homes. The plaintiff homeowners and Gentry are currently proceeding in arbitration and the Hawaii state court lawsuit has been stayed pending the conclusion of arbitration. Gentry has not asserted any third party claim against the Company, but has reserved the right to seek to do so.

In the Nishimura case and in the arbitration, the plaintiff homeowners seek damages according to proof. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably ascertain the likelihood that Gentry will be found responsible for substantial damages to the homeowners; whether, if so, Gentry would proceed against the Company; whether any legal theory against the Company might be viable, or the extent of the liability the Company might face if Gentry were to proceed against it.

The Company admits no liability in connection with the Nishimura case. It will vigorously defend any claims, whether appeal by the plaintiff homeowners, or third party claims by Gentry. Based on facts currently known to the Company and subject to future events and circumstances, the Company believes that all or part of any claims that any party might seek to allege against it related to the Nishimura case may be covered by its insurance policies.

Charles Vitale, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes, LLC, Civil No. 15-1-1347-07, a putative class action lawsuit, was filed in the Hawaii First Circuit on July 13, 2015, in which homeowner plaintiffs allege that all homes built by D.R Horton/D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes in the State of Hawaii have strap-tie holdowns that are suffering premature corrosion. The complaint alleges that various manufacturers make strap-tie holdowns that suffer from such corrosion, but does not identify the Company’s products specifically. The Company is not currently a party to the Vitale lawsuit, but the lawsuit in the future could potentially involve the Company’s strap-tie holdowns.

Given the preliminary nature and the complexities involved in the Nishimura and Vitale proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate reasonably a likelihood of possible loss or range of possible loss until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) whether it will be named in the lawsuit by any party; (ii) the specific claims and the legal theories on which they are based (iii) what claims, if any, will survive dispositive motion practice, (iv) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly as damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (v) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (vi) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation, (vii) the extent to which the Company’s insurance policies will cover the claims or any part thereof, if at all, (viii) whether class treatment is appropriate; and (ix) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation.

While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of proceedings, to which the Company is not currently a party, or reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for the Company related to such matters, in the opinion of the Company, either the likelihood of loss from such proceedings is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate. Nonetheless, the resolution of any claim or litigation is subject to inherent uncertainty and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.