CONTINGENCIES

The Company is involved in a number of legal proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of its business activities, and is periodically subject to governmental examinations (including by regulatory and tax authorities), and information gathering requests (collectively, "governmental examinations"). As of September 30, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant or was otherwise involved in numerous legal proceedings and governmental examinations in various jurisdictions, both in the United States and internationally.

The Company has recorded liabilities for certain of its outstanding legal proceedings and governmental examinations. A liability is accrued when it is both (a) probable that a loss with respect to the legal proceeding has occurred and (b) the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and governmental examinations that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that has been previously accrued. These legal proceedings, as well as governmental examinations, involve various lines of business of the Company and a variety of claims (including, but not limited to, common law tort, contract, antitrust and consumer protection claims), some of which present novel factual allegations and/or unique legal theories. While some matters pending against the Company specify the damages claimed by the plaintiff, many seek a not-yet-quantified amount of damages or are at very early stages of the legal process. Even when the amount of damages claimed against the Company are stated, the claimed amount may be exaggerated and/or unsupported. As a result, it is not currently possible to estimate a range of possible loss beyond previously accrued liabilities relating to some matters including those described below. Such previously accrued liabilities may not represent the Company's maximum loss exposure. The legal proceedings and governmental examinations underlying the estimated range will change from time to time and actual results may vary significantly from the currently accrued liabilities.

Based on its current knowledge, and taking into consideration its litigation-related liabilities, the Company believes it is not a party to, nor are any of its properties the subject of, any pending legal proceeding or governmental examination other than the matters below, which are addressed individually, that would have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or liquidity if determined in a manner adverse to the Company. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in such matters, the ultimate outcome of a particular matter could be material to the Company's operating results for a particular period depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of the Company's income for that period. Costs associated with the litigation and settlements of legal matters are reported within General and Administrative Expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Brazil Joint Venture

In March 2001, Bernard Krone Indústria e Comércio de Máquinas Agrícolas Ltda. (“BK”) filed suit against the Company in the Fourth Civil Court of Curitiba in the State of Paraná, Brazil. Because of the bankruptcy of BK, this proceeding is now pending before the Second Civil Court of Bankruptcies and Creditors Reorganization of Curitiba, State of Paraná (No. 232/99).

The case grows out of a joint venture agreement between BK and the Company related to marketing of RoadRailer trailers in Brazil and other areas of South America. When BK was placed into the Brazilian equivalent of bankruptcy late in 2000, the joint venture was dissolved. BK subsequently filed its lawsuit against the Company alleging that it was forced to terminate business with other companies because of the exclusivity and non-compete clauses purportedly found in the joint venture agreement. BK asserted damages, exclusive of any potentially court-imposed interest or inflation adjustments, of approximately R$20.8 million (Brazilian Reais). BK did not change the amount of damages it asserted following its filing of the case in 2001.

A bench (non-jury) trial was held on March 30, 2010 in Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. On November 22, 2011, the Fourth Civil Court of Curitiba partially granted BK’s claims, and ordered Wabash to pay BK lost profits, compensatory, economic and moral damages in excess of the amount of compensatory damages asserted by BK. The total ordered damages amount was approximately R$26.7 million (Brazilian Reais), which was approximately $8.2 million U.S. dollars using current exchange rates and exclusive of any potentially court-imposed interest, fees or inflation adjustments. On October 5, 2016, the Court of Appeals re-heard all facts and legal questions presented in the case, and ruled in favor of the Company on all claims at issue. In doing so, the Court of Appeals dismissed all claims against the Company and vacated the judgment and damages amounts previously ordered by the Fourth Civil Court of Curitiba. The ruling of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to a higher court by BK, but unless BK appeals the ruling and a higher court finds in favor of BK on any of its claims, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is final. Once the ruling is certified by the Court of Appeals, BK will have 15 days to file for further appeal, otherwise the judgment is final. As a result of the Court of Appeals ruling, the Company does not expect that this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations; however, it will continue to monitor these legal proceedings in the event BK were to further appeal the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

Intellectual Property

In October 2006, the Company filed a patent infringement suit against Vanguard National Corporation (“Vanguard”) regarding the Company’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,986,546 and 6,220,651 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Civil Action No. 4:06-cv-135). The Company amended the Complaint in April 2007. In May 2007, Vanguard filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint, along with Counterclaims seeking findings of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the subject patents. The Company filed a reply to Vanguard’s counterclaims in May 2007, denying any wrongdoing or merit to the allegations as set forth in the counterclaims. The case has currently been stayed by agreement of the parties while the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) undertakes a reexamination of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,986,546. In June 2010, the Patent Office notified the Company that the reexamination is complete and the Patent Office has reissued U.S. Patent No. 6,986,546 without cancelling any claims of the patent. The parties have not yet petitioned the Court to lift the stay, and it is unknown at this time when the parties’ petition to lift the stay may be filed or granted.

The Company believes that its claims against Vanguard have merit and that the claims asserted by Vanguard are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position and intellectual property. The Company does not believe that the resolution of this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, liquidity or future results of operations. However, at this stage of the proceeding, no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the case.

Walker Acquisition

In connection with the Company’s acquisition of Walker in May 2012, there is an outstanding claim of approximately $2.9 million for unpaid benefits that is currently in dispute and that, if required to be paid by the Company, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations

Environmental Disputes

In August 2014, the Company was noticed as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (“DHEC”) pertaining to the Philip Services Site located in Rock Hill, South Carolina pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and corresponding South Carolina statutes. PRPs include parties identified through manifest records as having contributed to deliveries of hazardous substances to the Philip Services Site between 1979 and 1999. The DHEC’s allegation that the Company was a PRP arises out of four manifest entries in 1989 under the name of a company unaffiliated with Wabash National (or any of its former or current subsidiaries) that purport to be delivering a de minimis amount of hazardous waste to the Philip Services Site “c/o Wabash National Corporation.” As such, the Philip Services Site PRP Group (“PRP Group”) notified Wabash in August 2014 that is was offering the Company the opportunity to resolve any liabilities associated with the Philip Services Site by entering into a Cash Out and Reopener Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the PRP Group, as well as a Consent Decree with the DHEC. The Company has accepted the offer from the PRP Group to enter into the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree, while reserving its rights to contest its liability for any deliveries of hazardous materials to the Philips Services Site. The requested settlement payment is immaterial to the Company’s financial conditions or operations, and as a result, if the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree are finalized, the payment to be made by the Company thereunder is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Bulk Tank International, S. de R.L. de C.V. (“Bulk”) entered into agreements in 2011 with the Mexican federal environmental agency, PROFEPA, and the applicable state environmental agency, PROPAEG, pursuant to PROFEPA’s and PROPAEG’s respective environmental audit programs to resolve noncompliance with federal and state environmental laws at Bulk’s Guanajuato facility. Bulk completed all required corrective actions and received a Certification of Clean Industry from PROPAEG, and is seeking the same certification from PROFEPA, which the Company expects it will receive in 2016, following the conclusion of a final audit process that commenced in December 2014. As a result, the Company does not expect that this matter will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

In January 2012, the Company was noticed as a PRP by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) pertaining to the Marine Shale Processors Site located in Amelia, Louisiana (“MSP Site”) pursuant to CERCLA and corresponding Louisiana statutes. PRPs include current and former owners and operators of facilities at which hazardous substances were allegedly disposed. The EPA’s allegation that the Company is a PRP arises out of one alleged shipment of waste to the MSP Site in 1992 from the Company’s branch facility in Dallas, Texas. As such, the MSP Site PRP Group notified the Company in January 2012 that, as a result of a March 18, 2009 Cooperative Agreement for Site Investigation and Remediation entered into between the MSP Site PRP Group and the LDEQ, the Company was being offered a “De Minimis Cash-Out Settlement” to contribute to the remediation costs, which would remain open until February 29, 2012. The Company chose not to enter into the settlement and has denied any liability. Following the Company’s presentation of evidence demonstrating that the Company acquired this branch facility five years after the alleged shipment as part of the assets the Company acquired out of the Fruehauf Trailer Corporation bankruptcy (Case No. 96-1563, United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware), the MSP Site PRP Group presented the Company with a new, and lower, settlement offer for less than $0.1 million. The Company accepted the settlement offer and executed a settlement agreement on September 20, 2016, without admitting any liability for the allegations raised by the EPA. As a result, the Company considers this matter resolved in full.

In September 2003, the Company was noticed as a PRP by the EPA pertaining to the Motorola 52nd Street, Phoenix, Arizona Superfund Site (the “Superfund Site”) pursuant to CERCLA. The EPA’s allegation that the Company was a PRP arises out of the Company’s acquisition of a former branch facility located approximately five miles from the original Superfund Site. The Company acquired this facility in 1997, operated the facility until 2000, and sold the facility to a third party in 2002. In June 2010, the Company was contacted by the Roosevelt Irrigation District (“RID”) informing it that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) had approved a remediation plan in excess of $100 million for the RID portion of the Superfund Site, and demanded that the Company contribute to the cost of the plan or be named as a defendant in a CERCLA action to be filed in July 2010. The Company initiated settlement discussions with the RID and the ADEQ in July 2010 to provide a full release from the RID, and a covenant not-to-sue and contribution protection regarding the former branch property from the ADEQ, in exchange for payment from the Company. In May 2016, the Company, the ADEQ and the RID executed the originally proposed settlement agreements and, following a statutorily required 30-day public comment period, the settlement agreements were finalized and the Company paid $0.2 million, which had been accrued by the Company since 2010. As a result, the Company considers this matter resolved in full.

In January 2006, the Company received a letter from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources indicating that a site that the Company formerly owned near Charlotte, North Carolina has been included on the state's October 2005 Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites Priority List. The letter states that the Company was being notified in fulfillment of the state's “statutory duty” to notify those who own and those who at present are known to be responsible for each Site on the Priority List. Following receipt of this notice, no action has ever been requested from the Company, and since 2006 the Company has not received any further communications regarding this matter from the state of North Carolina. The Company does not expect that this designation will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.