XML 103 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 12. Commitments and Contingencies Rent We lease certain facilities on a year-to-year basis. We also have future annual minimum rental commitments under noncancellable operating leases as follows:
December 31, |  | Commitment |
2014 |  | $ | 2,351 |
2015 |  |  | 2,122 |
2016 |  |  | 1,801 |
2017 |  |  | 693 |
2018 |  |  | 324 |
2019 and thereafter |  |  | 19 |
|  | $ | 7,310 |
Total rent expense under all operating leases for 2013 and 2012 was $2.5 million and $1.8 million, respectively. Legal Proceedings Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002 began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management’s opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company’s insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro’s products. In those cases where evidence has been produced, the Company’s experience has been that the exposure levels are low and the Company’s position has been that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through December 31, 2013 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $0.7 million which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel expenses, have been paid by the Company’s insurers. The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately $25,000. Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 173 cases pending against the Company as of December 31, 2013 (with Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases), as compared with 153 cases that were pending as of January 1, 2013. During the current fiscal year commencing January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, 48 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 32 cases and settled zero cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. On October 12, 2012 the Company received a letter from the Sheet Metal Workers’ Local Union No. 80 (“the Union”) alleging that the Company had completely withdrawn from the Union’s Pension Trust Fund. The Company settled this claim with the Union and recorded $3.5 million of legal reserve expense in 2013. One of our subsidiaries, Fisher-Klosterman, Inc. (“FKI”), is a defendant party in a products liability lawsuit filed in Harris County, Texas on August 23, 2010 by three Valero refining companies. The plaintiffs claim that FKI (and its co-Defendants) used an allegedly defective refractory material included in cyclones it supplied to Valero that caused damages to refineries they own and operate. Plaintiffs claim to have suffered property damages including catalyst loss, regenerator repair costs, replacement part costs, damage to other property and business interruption loss of up to $75 million. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. Based on currently available information, as of December 31, 2013, we have not recorded any reserve with respect to this matter. Met-Pro and the Met-Pro former board of directors are named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit brought by an alleged former Met-Pro shareholder who challenged the proposed Mergers filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case is captioned Raymond Gold v. Met-Pro Corporation, et al., filed July 8, 2013, Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-03948 and alleges, among other things, that the Met-Pro board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to Met-Pro and its shareholders in approving the Merger Agreement at an unfair price, unduly restricting other potential bidders from making competing offers, failing to consult with other bidders to create a competitive bid process, and unduly limiting the board’s ability to consider and potentially accept an alternative proposal. The complaint further alleges that the Met-Pro board of directors and management were conflicted and improperly motivated to approve the Merger Agreement in order to secure benefits that are not available to Met-Pro’s shareholders, including the accelerated vesting of certain securities and change in control payments, and that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 23, 2013, as amended by the filing of Amendment No. 1 on July 3, 2013, did not make sufficient disclosures regarding the Mergers. The action seeks an award of unspecified money damages. Met-Pro and CECO believe that these claims are without merit; however, in order to avoid the risk of delaying the consummation of the acquisition and to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation, on July 20, 2013, Met-Pro entered into a memorandum of understanding (the “MOU”) with the plaintiff to settle the foregoing action without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. As part of the MOU, Met-Pro agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the acquisition, which disclosures were incorporated into the final joint proxy statement/prospectus sent to the former Met-Pro shareholders. On February 25, 2014, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, as contemplated by the MOU, which provides, among other things, for the conditional certification of a non-opt out class, for settlement purposes only, that includes any and all persons or entities who held shares of Met-Pro common stock, either of record or beneficially, at any time between April 22, 2013, the date Met-Pro announced the Merger Agreement, and August 27, 2013, the date of the consummation of the acquisition. The stipulation of settlement also provides for the payment of up to $0.2 million for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs to the attorneys for the class. The settlement and the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs are subject to court approval, and there can be no assurance that the court will approve such settlement. Based on currently available information, as of December 31, 2013 we have recorded a reserve of $0.2 million with respect to this matter. The Company is also a party to routine contract and employment-related litigation matters and routine audits of state and local tax returns arising in the ordinary course of its business. The final outcome and impact of open matters, and related claims and investigations that may be brought in the future, are subject to many variables, and cannot be predicted. In accordance with ASC 450, “Contingencies,” and related guidance, we record reserves for estimated losses relating to claims and lawsuits when available information indicates that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. The Company expenses legal costs as they are incurred. We are not aware of pending claims or assessments, other than as described above, which may have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

X
- 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 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 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration