XML 55 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies | NOTE 6 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Standby Letters of Credit At March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company had outstanding standby letters of credit aggregating $28.9 million and $29.2 million, respectively, principally to act as security for retention levels related to casualty insurance policies and to guarantee the performance of subsidiaries that engage in export transactions to non-U.S. governments and municipalities. Warranties The Company issues product performance warranties to customers with the sale of its products. The specific terms and conditions of these warranties vary depending upon the product sold and the country in which the Company conducts business, with warranty periods generally ranging from one to ten years. The Company estimates the costs that may be incurred under its basic limited warranty and records a liability in the amount of such costs at the time the sale of the related product is recognized. Factors that affect the Company’s warranty liability include the number of units under warranty from time to time, historical and anticipated rates of warranty claims, and costs per claim. The Company periodically assesses the adequacy of its recorded warranty liabilities and adjusts the amounts as necessary. Changes in the Company’s warranty liabilities were as follows:
|  | Three Months Ended March 31, |
(in millions) |  | 2013 |  |  | 2012 |
Balance at January 1 |  | $ | 6.8 |  |  | $ | 6.7 |
Provisions to expense |  |  | 2.2 |  |  |  | 1.8 |
Payments |  |  | (1.8 | ) |  |  | (1.6 | )
Balance at March 31 |  | $ | 7.2 |  |  | $ | 6.9 |
Environmental Liabilities The Company retained an environmental consultant to conduct an environmental risk assessment at its Pearland, Texas facility. The facility, which was previously used by the Company’s discontinued Pauluhn business, manufactured marine, offshore and industrial lighting products. The Company sold the facility in May 2012. While the Company has not finalized its plans, it is probable that the site will require remediation. Reserves of $1.8 million related to the environmental remediation of the Pearland facility are included in liabilities of discontinued operations on the consolidated balance sheet at both March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012. The recorded reserves are based on an undiscounted estimate of the range of costs to remediate the site, depending upon the remediation approach and other factors. The Company’s estimate may change in the near term as more information becomes available; however, the costs are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or liquidity. Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to various claims, other pending and possible legal actions for product liability and other damages, and other matters arising out of the conduct of the Company’s business. On a quarterly basis, the Company reviews the uninsured material legal claims against the Company. The Company accrues for the costs of such claims as appropriate and in the exercise of its best judgment and experience. However, due to a lack of factual information available to the Company about a claim, or the procedural stage of a claim, it may not be possible for the Company to reasonably assess either the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome of the claim or to reasonably estimate the amount of loss should there be an unfavorable outcome. Therefore, for many of the claims, the Company cannot estimate a range of loss. The Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such claims and actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of such matters, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming that exposure to the Company’s sirens has impaired their hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. Beginning in 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs’ claims occurred in 2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company. An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs’ counsel later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict returned against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal. Two justices voted to uphold the verdict and one justice filed a lengthy and vigorous dissent. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013. The Company has sought further review by filing a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this trial. Following this trial, the trial court on March 12, 2012 entered an order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court accepted the Company’s petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ motion, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s certification order. Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December 2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012, the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company in this trial. Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company’s objection, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on March 11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10, 2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class certification order. On April 23, 2013, the Appellate Court granted the Company’s petition for review. Pursuant to Illinois law, all class proceedings in the trial court are stayed pending a final decision from the Appellate Court on this issue. The Company has also been sued on this issue outside of the Cook County, Illinois venue. Most of these cases have involved lawsuits filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. During 2007 and through 2009, this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits, involving 71 plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company paid nominal sums, which included reimbursements of expenses, to obtain dismissals. Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases. The first trial involving one of these plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company’s siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08 million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The third trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials, the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represents (the “Claimants”) and who had asserted product claims against the Company (the “Claims”). Three hundred and eight of the Claimants had lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois. The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the “Settlement Payment”) to settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of the law firm in connection with its representation of the claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each claimant who agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release acceptable to the Company (a “Release”); (ii) each Claimant who agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had to dismiss his or her lawsuit with prejudice; (iii) by April 29, 2011, at least 93% of the claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a signed Release to the Company; and (iv) the law firm had to withdraw from representing any claimants who did not agree to the settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did not agree to the settlement. On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was based upon the Company’s receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided by claimants, which was 95.02% of all claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement. The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience, uncertainty, and distraction of the claims and lawsuits. During April and May 2012, 15 new cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These cases were filed on behalf of 15 Philadelphia firefighters and involve various defendants in addition to the Company. During April and May 2013, additional cases were filed in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve 22 plaintiff firefighters from Pittsburgh and various defendants, including the Company. Firefighters have brought hearing loss claims against the Company in jurisdictions other than Pennsylvania and Cook County. In particular, cases have been filed in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and New York. All of those cases, however, were dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York which were dismissed upon the Company’s motion in 2008. The trial court subsequently denied reconsideration of its ruling. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed. The Company’s ongoing negotiations with its insurer, CNA, over insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements of a portion of the Company’s defense costs. For the three months ended March 31, 2013, the Company did not record any reimbursements from CNA related to legal costs incurred in the prior year. For the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company recorded $0.7 million of reimbursements from CNA related to legal costs incurred in the prior year, as a reduction of corporate operating expenses, of which $0.6 million had been received as of December 31, 2012. The remaining $0.1 million was received in the first quarter of 2013. On July 29, 2011, Neology, Inc. (“Neology”) filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court of Delaware for alleged patent infringements. The lawsuit demands that the Company cease manufacturing, marketing, importing or selling Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) systems and products that allegedly infringe certain specified patents owned by Neology, and also demands compensation for past alleged infringement. The Company has denied the allegations in the complaint. On December 2, 2011, Neology filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting that the court enter an order preliminarily enjoining the Company from further alleged infringement of certain Neology patents. On June 18, 2012, a U.S. District Court Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation that the motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. On August 12, 2012, a U.S. District Court Judge adopted that Report and Recommendation. On August 20, 2012, Neology filed a motion for leave to file for partial summary judgment against the Company regarding two of the patents in issue in this litigation. On September 21, 2012, a U.S. District Court Magistrate denied the motion. On May 21, 2012, Neology filed another complaint against the Company, also for alleged patent infringement, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On July 19, 2012, Neology filed certain amendments to that complaint. The amended complaint similarly demands that the Company cease manufacturing, marketing, importing or selling certain RFID transponders and readers that allegedly infringe certain other specified patents owned by Neology, and also demands compensation for past alleged infringement. The Company has denied the allegations in the complaint. On September 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion requesting that the court transfer this litigation to the U.S. District Court of Delaware, where Neology filed its earlier patent infringement suit against the Company. On October 15, 2012, the court granted this motion and ordered the transfer of this litigation to the U.S. District Court of Delaware. On November 2, 2012, the U.S. District Court of Delaware ordered the consolidation of the transferred California litigation and the pending Delaware litigation. In connection with the closing of the sale of the FSTech Group to 3M Company on September 4, 2012, 3M Company agreed to assume the defense of the Neology lawsuits. A portion of the purchase price proceeds was placed into escrow to be held for a period of 48 months as security for the indemnification obligations of the Company as well as defense and other costs associated with the Neology lawsuits and legal proceedings incident thereto, subject to early release under certain conditions. Information regarding the Company’s discontinued operations is further discussed in Note 11 – Discontinued Operations. On February 22, 2013, Neology filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) requesting that the ITC commence an investigation into alleged violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Tariff Act”), 19 U.S.C. §1337. The complaint alleges that Federal Signal Corporation, Federal Signal Technologies, LLC, Sirit Corp. and 3M Company unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain RFID products and their major components, which allegedly infringe certain Neology patents. On March 26, 2013, the ITC issued a Notice of Investigation regarding the complaint filed by Neology. The remedy requested by Neology in its complaint filed with the ITC, and the relief that can be ordered by the ITC in favor of a prevailing complainant, is prospective injunctive relief barring the products and components that allegedly violate Section 337 of the Tariff Act from importation into the U.S. Compensatory monetary relief is neither expressly sought by Neology in its complaint nor a form of relief available to a prevailing complainant from the ITC. Since the disposition of the assets of the FSTech Group on September 4, 2012, as further discussed in Note 11 – Discontinued Operations, the Company has not imported into the U.S. nor sold within the U.S. the products or components identified by Neology in its complaint.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for significant arrangements with third parties, which includes operating lease arrangements and arrangements in which the entity has agreed to expend funds to procure goods or services, or has agreed to commit resources to supply goods or services, and operating lease arrangements. Descriptions may include identification of the specific goods and services, period of time covered, minimum quantities and amounts, and cancellation rights. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Section 03 -Paragraph 17 -Article 9 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 942 -SubTopic 210 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.9-03.17) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6876686&loc=d3e534808-122878 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 944 -SubTopic 210 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.7-03.(a)(19)) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6879938&loc=d3e572229-122910 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Section 02 -Paragraph 25 -Article 5 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Section 03 -Paragraph 19 -Article 7 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration