XML 40 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.7.0.1
Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases
 
      The Company leases office space and equipment under various operating leases, which generally are expected to be renewed or replaced by other leases. In 2016, all previously disclosed capital leases ended. The Company did not enter into any new capital leases. As of December 31, 2016, future minimum lease payments under these non-cancelable leases are:
  
(in thousands)
 
Operating
Leases
2017
 
$
3,130

2018
 
2,110

2019
 
1,241

2020
 
734

2021
 
333

Thereafter
 
36

Total minimum lease payments
 
$
7,584


     
Rental expense for operating leases was $4,060,000 for 2016, $4,295,000 for 2015, and $3,666,000 for 2014.

Purchase obligations of $89,355,000 represent an estimate of goods and services to be purchased under outstanding purchase orders not reflected on the Company’s balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. New purchase obligations should be received and paid for during the current fiscal year.

Other

Like other manufacturers, the Company is subject to a broad range of federal, state, local and foreign laws and requirements, including those concerning air emissions, discharges into waterways, and the generation, handling, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of hazardous substances and waste materials, as well as the remediation of contamination associated with releases of hazardous substances at the Company’s facilities and off-site disposal locations, workplace safety and equal employment opportunities. These laws and regulations are constantly changing, and it is impossible to predict with accuracy the effect that changes to such laws and regulations may have on the Company in the future. Like other industrial concerns, the Company’s manufacturing operations entail the risk of noncompliance, and there can be no assurance that the Company will not incur material costs or other liabilities as a result thereof.
 
The Company knows that its Indianola, Iowa property is contaminated with chromium which most likely resulted from chrome plating operations which were discontinued before the Company purchased the property. Chlorinated volatile organic compounds have also been detected in water samples on the property, though the source is unknown at this time. The Company voluntarily worked with an environmental consultant and the state of Iowa with respect to these issues and believes it completed its remediation program in June 2006. The work was accomplished within the Company’s environmental liability reserve balance. We requested a “no further action” classification from the state. We received a conditional “no further action” letter in January of 2009. When we demonstrate stable or improving conditions below residential standards for a certain period of time by monitoring existing wells, we will request an unconditional “no further action” letter.

Alamo Group Inc. and Bush Hog, Inc. were added as defendants in 2013 to litigation by Deere & Company as plaintiff against Bush Hog, LLC (now Duroc, LLC) and Great Plains Manufacturing Incorporated, in which Deere alleged infringement of a mower-related patent. The jury concluded that not only did the defendants not infringe the patent, but that the patent was invalid as well. The Company expensed $2,100,000 in legal fees related to this lawsuit in 2013. Deere & Company appealed and requested a new trial. A hearing on the appeal was held on October 8, 2015. On May 26, 2016 the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court ruling and validating the jury’s finding that the defendants did not infringe the patent, and that the Deere & Company patent was invalid. This matter has been finally adjudicated and is no longer subject to further appeal by Deere & Company or any other parties.

Certain assets of the Company contain asbestos that may have to be remediated over time. The Company believes that any subsequent change in the liability associated with the asbestos removal will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The Company is subject to various other federal, state, and local laws affecting its business, as well as a variety of regulations relating to such matters as working conditions, equal employment opportunities, and product safety. A variety of state laws regulate the Company’s contractual relationships with its dealers, some of which impose restrictive standards on the relationship between the Company and its dealers, including events of default, grounds for termination, non-renewal of dealer contracts, and equipment repurchase requirements. The Company believes it is currently in material compliance with all such applicable laws and regulations.