XML 35 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | (I) Commitments and Contingencies Our operations and properties are subject to extensive and changing federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances governing the protection of the environment, as well as laws relating to worker health and workplace safety. We carefully consider the requirements mandated by such laws and regulations and have procedures in place at all of our operating units to monitor compliance. Any matters which are identified as potential exposures under these laws and regulations are carefully reviewed by management to determine our potential liability. Although management is not aware of any exposures which require an accrual under generally accepted accounting principles, there can be no assurance that prior or future operations will not ultimately result in violations, claims or other liabilities associated with these regulations. We have certain deductible limits under our workers’ compensation and liability insurance policies for which reserves are established based on the undiscounted estimated costs of known and anticipated claims. We have entered into standby letter of credit agreements relating to workers’ compensation and auto and general liability self-insurance. At March 31, 2018, we had contingent liabilities under these outstanding letters of credit of approximately $7.5 million. We are currently contingently liable for performance under $26.1 million in performance bonds required by certain states and municipalities, and their related agencies. The bonds are principally for certain reclamation obligations and mining permits. We have indemnified the underwriting insurance company against any exposure under the performance bonds. In our past experience, no material claims have been made against these financial instruments. Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Litigation Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in various United States District Courts, including the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the Company’s subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC (American Gypsum), alleging that the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix the price for drywall sold in the United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some cases related provisions of state law. The complaints alleged that the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the elimination of individual “job quote” pricing. In addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits included CertainTeed Corp. (CertainTeed), USG Corporation and United States Gypsum (together USG), New NGC, Inc. (New NGC), Lafarge North America (Lafarge), Temple Inland Inc. (TIN) and PABCO Building Products LLC (PABCO). On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred and consolidated all related cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct purchasers’ complaint added the Company as a defendant. The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action complaints assert claims on behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers or end users of wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and American Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations that they conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserting affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims. In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant to which they agreed to settle all claims against them. Under the terms of its settlement agreement, USG agreed to pay $48.0 million to resolve the direct and indirect purchaser class actions. In its settlement agreement, TIN agreed to pay $7.0 million to resolve the direct and indirect purchaser class actions. On August 20, 2015, the court entered orders finally approving USG and TIN’s settlements with the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs. Following completion of the initial discovery, the Company and remaining co-defendants moved for summary judgment. On February 18, 2016, the court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment and granted judgment in favor of CertainTeed. On June 16, 2016, Lafarge entered into an agreement with counsel for the direct purchaser class under which it agreed to settle all claims against it for $23.0 million. The court entered an order finally approving this settlement on December 7, 2016. On July 28, 2016, Lafarge entered into an agreement with counsel representing the indirect purchaser class under which it agreed to settle all claims against it for $5.2 million, which was approved by the court on February 28, 2017. On July 14, 2016, the Company’s motion for permission to appeal the summary judgment decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was denied. Direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their motions for class certification on August 3, 2016 and October 12, 2016, respectively. On August 23, 2017, the court granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified a class consisting of all persons or entities that purchased paper-backed gypsum wallboard in the United States from January 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013 directly from American Gypsum, the Company, Lafarge, New NGC, PABCO, USG, and/or L&W Supply Corporation (which was a subsidiary of USG Corporation during the class period). On September 6, 2017, American Gypsum, the Company, New NGC, and PABCO filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking interlocutory appeal of the district court’s decision granting the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The Third Circuit denied the Defendant’s petition on October 27, 2017. On August 24, 2017, the court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On September 7, 2017, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a petition with the Third Circuit appealing the district court’s denial of their motion for class certification. The Third Circuit denied the indirect purchaser plaintiff’s petition on October 12, 2017. On December 29, 2017 American Gypsum and the Company, as well as New NGC and PABCO, which are not affiliated with the Company, entered into a settlement agreement (the Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement) with counsel representing the direct purchaser class to settle all claims made against the Company, American Gypsum, New NGC and PABCO in the direct purchaser class action. The Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement, in which the Company and American Gypsum deny all wrongdoing, also includes releases by the participating class members of the Company and American Gypsum as well as their subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related parties, for the time period from January 1, 2012 through the date of execution of the Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement. The Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement grants the Company, American, New NGC, and PABCO the right to terminate the Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement in the event an agreed upon percentage of potential class members opt-out of the Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement. Additionally, the Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement is conditioned on final approval of the District Court. On January 5, 2018 American Gypsum, New NGC, and PABCO entered into a settlement agreement (the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Agreement) with counsel representing the indirect purchaser class to settle all claims against American Gypsum, New NGC and PABCO in the indirect purchaser class action. The Indirect Purchaser Settlement Agreement is conditioned on final approval of the District Court. Under the Direct and Indirect Purchaser Settlement Agreements, the Company and American Gypsum agreed to pay a total of approximately $39.1 million in cash to settle the claims against them. At December 31, 2017 we accrued the total amount of these two settlements. During March 2018, we deposited approximately $38.8 million into a qualified settlement fund. Upon final approval of the District Court, these funds will be transferred to the plaintiffs. We expect to receive approval from the District Court by the end of calendar 2018. On March 17, 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint against the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the same conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints. On March 24, 2015, the JPML transferred this action to the multidistrict litigation already pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Following the transfer, the homebuilder plaintiffs filed two amended complaints, on December 14, 2015 and March 25, 2016. As a result of settlements reached with TIN and Lafarge, the homebuilder plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against TIN and Lafarge on June 6 and June 24, 2016, respectively. On January 31, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against CertainTeed. Effective May 8, 2018, American Gypsum and the homebuilder plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement (the Homebuilder Settlement Agreement) to settle all claims made against American Gypsum. The Homebuilder Settlement Agreement, in which American Gypsum denies all wrongdoing, includes releases by the homebuilder plaintiffs of American Gypsum as well as its subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related parties, for the time period prior to and including the date of execution of the Homebuilder Settlement Agreement. Under the Homebuilder Settlement Agreement, American Gypsum agreed to pay a total of $6.0 million in cash to settle the claims against it. At March 31, 2018 we accrued the total amount of this settlement and this amount was paid on May 18, 2018. In June 2015, American Gypsum and an employee received grand jury subpoenas from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina seeking information regarding an investigation of the gypsum drywall industry by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. We believe the investigation, although a separate proceeding, is related to the same subject matter at issue in the litigation described above and we intend to fully cooperate with government officials. Given its preliminary nature, we are currently unable to determine the ultimate outcome of such investigation. Other In the ordinary course of business, we execute contracts involving indemnifications that are standard in the industry and indemnifications specific to a transaction such as the sale of a business. These indemnifications might include claims relating to any of the following: environmental and tax matters; intellectual property rights; governmental regulations and employment-related matters; customer, supplier, construction contractor and other commercial contractual relationships; and financial matters. While the maximum amount to which we may be exposed under such agreements cannot be estimated, it is the opinion of management that these indemnifications are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We currently have no outstanding guarantees of third party debt. We have certain forward purchase contracts, primarily for natural gas, that expire during calendar 2017. The contracts are for approximately 25% of our anticipated natural gas usage. We have certain operating leases covering manufacturing, transportation, a quarry and certain other facilities and equipment. Rental expense for fiscal years 2018, 2017, and 2016 totaled $12.0 million, $11.3 million and $10.3 million, respectively. Minimum annual rental commitments as of March 31, 2018, under noncancelable leases are set forth as follows (dollars in thousands):
Fiscal Year |  | Amount |
2019 |  | $ | 11,386 |
2020 |  | $ | 8,235 |
2021 |  | $ | 4,807 |
2022 |  | $ | 3,359 |
2023 |  | $ | 2,979 |
Thereafter |  | $ | 5,596 |

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -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