XML 35 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Litigation In the ordinary course of business, the Company is, and in the future, could be involved in various pending or threatened legal actions, some of which may or may not be covered by insurance. Management has reviewed such pending judicial and legal proceedings, the reasonably anticipated costs and expenses in connection with such proceedings, and the availability and limits of insurance coverage, and has established reserves that are believed to be appropriate in light of those outcomes that are believed to be probable and can be estimated. The reserves accrued at December 31, 2021 and 2020 are immaterial. In the opinion of management, the Company’s ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these actions is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Asbestos litigation One of our subsidiaries has been named as one of many defendants in a number of product liability claims for alleged exposure to asbestos used in valves. These lawsuits are typically filed on behalf of plaintiffs who allege exposure to asbestos, against numerous defendants, often forty or more, who are alleged to have manufactured or distributed products containing asbestos. The injuries alleged by plaintiffs in these cases range from mesothelioma and other cancers to asbestosis. The earliest claims against our subsidiary were filed in New Jersey in 1998, and our subsidiary currently has active cases in Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Illinois and Delaware. These complaints do not typically include requests for a specific amount of damages. Our subsidiary acquired the trademark for the product line in question in 1985. To date, most of the claims against our subsidiary alleging illnesses due to asbestos have generally been based on products manufactured by the previous owner prior to 1985 that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Many claimants alleging illnesses due to asbestos sue on the basis of exposure prior to 1985, as by that date the hazards of asbestos exposure were well known and asbestos had begun to fall into disuse. Our subsidiary has been successful in obtaining dismissals in most lawsuits without any cash contribution including because the “successor liability” law in most states does not hold a purchaser in good faith liable for the actions of the seller prior to the acquisition date unless the purchaser contractually assumed the liabilities, which our subsidiary did not. There are exceptions to the successor liability doctrine in many states, so there are no assurances that our subsidiary will not be found liable for the actions of its predecessor. The law in other states on so called “successor liability” may be different or ambiguous in this regard, and could also expose our subsidiary to liability. Our subsidiary could also be found liable should a trier of fact reject our subsidiary’s position that it is not responsible for the alleged asbestos injuries, such as in a case where a plaintiff alleges post-1985 exposure. To date, asbestos claims have not had a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flow, as our annual out-of-pocket costs over the last five years has been less than $200,000. There were fewer than 25 new cases filed against our subsidiary in each of last two years, and a significant number of existing cases were dismissed, settled or otherwise disposed of over the last year. We currently have fewer than 150 lawsuits pending against this subsidiary. Our subsidiary has over $17 million in face amount of insurance per occurrence and over $23 million of aggregate primary insurance coverage. In addition, our subsidiary has over $950 million in face amount of excess coverage applicable to the claims. There can be no guarantee that all of this can be collected due to policy terms and conditions and insurer insolvencies in the past or in the future. In January 2011, we entered into an agreement with seven of our primary insurers under which they have agreed to pay 80% of the costs of handling and settling each asbestos claim against the affected subsidiary. The insurers’ portion of the settlements is funded by our primary insurance limits, which are eroded only by settlements and not legal fees. Approximately $2.0 million in settlements has been paid by insurers and our subsidiary to date, with approximately $40,000 paid over the course of the last two years. Our subsidiary and the subscribing insurers have the right to withdraw from this agreement, but to date, no party has exercised this right or expressed an intent to do so. Portland Harbor Superfund litigation In May 2009, one of the Company’s subsidiaries (which is presently a dormant company with nominal assets except for rights under insurance policies) was named along with many defendants in a suit filed by the Port of Portland, Oregon seeking reimbursement of costs related to a five-year study of contaminated sediments at the port. In March 2010, the subsidiary also received a notice letter from the Environmental Protection Agency indicating that it had been identified as a potentially responsible party with respect to environmental contamination in the “study area” for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. Under a 1997 indemnity agreement, the subsidiary is indemnified by a third party with respect to losses relating to environmental contamination. As required under the indemnity agreement, the subsidiary provided notice of these claims, and the indemnitor has assumed responsibility and is providing a defense of the claims. Although the Company believes that it is unlikely that the subsidiary contributed to the contamination at the Portland Harbor Superfund Site, the potential liability of the subsidiary and the ability of the indemnitor to fulfill its indemnity obligations cannot be quantified at this time. Tenaris litigation In October of 2017, one of our subsidiaries, Global Tubing, LLC, filed suit against Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLC and Tenaris, S.A. (together “Tenaris”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking a declaration that its DURACOIL TM products do not infringe certain Tenaris patents related to coiled tubing. Tenaris filed counterclaims against Global Tubing alleging DURACOIL TM products infringe three patents. Tenaris seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. Global Tubing is vigorously defending itself and alleges the Tenaris patents are invalid and unenforceable. While Global Tubing believes that it will prevail on all claims, if Tenaris were to obtain a permanent injunction, Global Tubing may be barred from selling certain of its DURACOIL TM products. Operating leases The Company has operating leases for warehouses, office space, manufacturing facilities and equipment. The leases generally require the Company to pay certain expenses including taxes, insurance, maintenance, and utilities. See Note 10 Leases for further information. Letters of credit and guarantees The Company executes letters of credit in the normal course of business to secure the delivery of product from specific vendors and also to guarantee the Company fulfilling certain performance obligations relating to certain large contracts. At December 31, 2021, the Company had $18.7 million in letters of credit outstanding.

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 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://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_CommitmentsDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration