XML 29 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.1

CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
CONTINGENCIES | CONTINGENCIES As of March 31, 2019, the Company was named as a defendant or was otherwise involved in numerous legal proceedings and governmental examinations, in connection with the conduct of its business activities, in various jurisdictions, both in the United States and internationally. On the basis of information currently available to it, management does not believe that existing proceedings and investigations will have a material impact on our consolidated financial condition or liquidity if determined in a manner adverse to the Company. However, such matters are unpredictable, and we could incur judgments or enter into settlements for current or future claims that could materially and adversely affect our financial statements. Costs associated with the litigation and settlements of legal matters are reported within General and Administrative Expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Environmental Disputes In August 2014, the Company received notice 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 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 it 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. Supreme Litigation Prior to the Company’s acquisition of Supreme, on November 4, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Supreme Corporation, Mark D. Weber (Supreme’s former Chief Executive Officer) and Matthew W. Long (Supreme’s former Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by making material, misleading statements in July 2016 regarding projected backlog. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. On February 14, 2017, the court transferred the venue of the case to the Northern District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of the plaintiff and the defendants. An amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2017 challenging statements made during a putative class period of October 22, 2015, through October 21, 2016. On May 24, 2018, the Court granted Supreme’s motion to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim. On July 13, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On August 24, 2018, Supreme filed a second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and requested dismissal with prejudice. On March 29, 2019, the Court granted Supreme’s motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, with prejudice. The deadline for filing an appeal on the merits was April 29, 2019, and the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Court on that same day. Chassis Converter Pool Agreements The Company, through Supreme, obtains most vehicle chassis for its specialized vehicle products directly from the chassis manufacturers under converter pool agreements. Chassis are obtained from the manufacturers based on orders from customers, and in some cases, for unallocated orders. The agreements generally state that the manufacturer will provide a supply of chassis to be maintained at the Company’s facilities with the condition that we will store such chassis and will not move, sell, or otherwise dispose of such chassis except under the terms of the agreement. In addition, the manufacturer typically retains the sole authority to authorize commencement of work on the chassis and to make certain other decisions with respect to the chassis including the terms and pricing of sales of the chassis to the manufacturer’s dealers. The manufacturer also does not transfer the certificate of origin to the Company nor permit the Company to sell or transfer the chassis to anyone other than the manufacturer (for ultimate resale to a dealer). Although the Company is party to related finance agreements with manufacturers, the Company has not historically settled, nor expects to in the future settle, any related obligations in cash. Instead, the obligation is settled by the manufacturer upon reassignment of the chassis to an accepted dealer, and the dealer is invoiced for the chassis by the manufacturer. Accordingly, as of March 31, 2019, the Company’s outstanding chassis converter pool with the manufacturer totaled $22.9 million and has included this financing agreement on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets within Prepaid expenses and other and Other accrued liabilities. All other chassis programs through its Supreme subsidiary are handled as consigned inventory belonging to the manufacturer and totaled approximately $5.9 million. Under these agreements, if the chassis is not delivered to a customer within a specified time frame the Company is required to pay a finance or storage charge on the chassis. Additionally, the Company receives finance support funds from manufacturers when the chassis are assigned into the Company’s chassis pool. Typically, chassis are converted and delivered to customers within 90 days of the receipt of the chassis by the Company.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -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