XML 37 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Product Liability Claims The Company is subject to product warranty claims that arise in the ordinary course of its business. For certain manufactured products, the Company maintains a product warranty accrual which is adjusted on a monthly basis as a percentage of cost of sales. The product warranty accrual is periodically adjusted based on the identification or resolution of known individual product warranty claims. The following table sets forth the Company’s product warranty accrual:
| Warranty Liability
Balance at December 31, 2017 | $ | 8,682 |
Additions to warranty liability | 187 |
Warranty liability utilized | (163 | )
Balance at March 31, 2018 | $ | 8,706 |
Included within the above table are concrete tie warranty reserves of approximately $7,630 and $7,595 at March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively. Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Concrete Tie Matter On July 12, 2011, UPRR notified (the “UPRR Notice”) the Company and its subsidiary, CXT Incorporated (“CXT”), of a warranty claim under CXT’s 2005 supply contract relating to the sale of pre-stressed concrete railroad ties to UPRR. UPRR asserted that a significant percentage of concrete ties manufactured in 2006 through 2011 at CXT’s Grand Island, NE facility failed to meet contract specifications, had workmanship defects and were cracking and failing prematurely. Of the 3 million ties manufactured between 1998 and 2011 from the Grand Island, NE facility, approximately 1.6 million ties were sold during the period UPRR had claimed nonconformance.The 2005 contract called for each concrete tie which failed to conform to the specifications or had a material defect in workmanship to be replaced with 1.5 new concrete ties, provided, that, within five years of the sale of a concrete tie, UPRR notified CXT of such failure to conform or such defect in workmanship. The UPRR Notice did not specify how many ties manufactured during this period were defective nor the exact nature of the alleged workmanship defect. Following the UPRR Notice, the Company worked with material scientists and pre-stressed concrete experts to test a representative sample of Grand Island, NE concrete ties and assess warranty claims for certain concrete ties made in its Grand Island, NE facility between 1998 and 2011. The Company discontinued manufacturing operations in Grand Island, NE in early 2011. 2012 During 2012, the Company completed sufficient testing and analysis to further understand this matter. Based upon testing results and expert analysis, the Company believed it discovered conditions, which largely related to the 2006 to 2007 manufacturing period, that can shorten the life of the concrete ties produced during this period. During the fourth quarter of 2012 and first quarter of 2013, the Company reached agreement with UPRR on several matters including a tie rating process for the Company and UPRR to work together to identify, prioritize, and replace defective ties that meet the criteria for replacement. This process applies to the ties the Company shipped to UPRR from its Grand Island, NE facility from 1998 to 2011. During most of this period, the Company’s warranty policy for UPRR carried a 5-year warranty with a 1.5:1 replacement ratio for any defective ties. In order to accommodate UPRR and other customer concerns, the Company also reverted to a previously used warranty policy providing a 15-year warranty with a 1:1 replacement ratio. This change provided an additional 10 years of warranty protection. In the amended 2005 supply agreement, the Company and UPRR also extended the supply of Tucson ties by five years and agreed on a cash payment of $12,000 to UPRR as compensation for concrete ties already replaced by UPRR during the investigation period. During 2012, as a result of the testing that the Company conducted on concrete ties manufactured at its former Grand Island, NE facility and the developments related to UPRR and other customer matters, the Company recorded pre-tax warranty charges of $22,000 in “Cost of Goods Sold” within its Rail Products and Services segment based on the Company’s estimate of the number of defective concrete ties that will ultimately require replacement during the applicable warranty periods. 2013 Throughout 2013, at UPRR’s request and under the terms of the amended 2005 supply agreement, the Company provided warranty replacement concrete ties for use across certain UPRR subdivisions. The Company attempted to reconcile the quantity of warranty claims for ties replaced and obtain supporting detail for the ties removed. The Company believes that UPRR did not replace concrete ties in accordance with the amended agreement and has not furnished adequate documentation throughout the replacement process in these subdivisions to support its full warranty claim. Based on the information received by the Company to date, the Company believes that a significant number of ties which UPRR replaced in these subdivisions did not meet the criteria to be covered as warranty replacement ties under the amended 2005 supply agreement. The disagreement related to the 2013 warranty replacement activity includes approximately 170,000 ties where the Company provided detailed documentation supporting our position with reason codes that detail why these ties are not eligible for a warranty claim. In late November 2013, the Company received notice from UPRR asserting a material breach of the amended 2005 supply agreement. UPRR’s notice asserted that the failure to honor its claims for warranty ties in these subdivisions was a material breach. Following receipt of this notice, the Company provided information to UPRR to refute UPRR’s claim of breach and included the reconciliation of warranty claims supported by substantial findings from the Company’s track observation team, all within the 90-day cure period. The Company also proposed further discussions to reach agreement on reconciliation for 2013 replacement activities and future replacement activities and a recommended process that will ensure future replacement activities are done with appropriate documentation and per the terms of the amended 2005 supply agreement. 2014 During the first quarter of 2014, the Company further responded within the 90-day cure period to UPRR’s claim and presented a reconciliation for the subdivisions at issue. This proposed reconciliation was based on empirical data and visual observation from Company employees that were present during the replacement process for a substantial majority of the concrete ties replaced. The Company spent considerable time documenting facts related to concrete tie condition and track condition to assess whether the ties replaced met the criteria to be eligible for replacement under the terms of the amended 2005 supply agreement. During 2014, the Company increased its accrual by an additional $8,766 based on revised estimates of ties to be replaced based upon scientific testing and other analysis, adjusted for ties already provided to UPRR. The Company continued to work with UPRR to identify, replace, and reconcile defective ties related to the warranty claim in accordance with the amended 2005 supply agreement. The Company and UPRR met during the third quarter of 2014 to evaluate each other’s position in an effort to work towards agreement on the unreconciled 2013 and 2014 replacement activity as well as the standards and practices to be implemented for future replacement activity and warranty tie replacement. In November and December of 2014, the Company received additional notices from UPRR asserting that ties manufactured in 2000 were defective and again asserting material breaches of the amended 2005 supply agreement relating to warranty tie replacements as well as certain new ties provided to UPRR being out of specification. At December 31, 2014, the Company and UPRR had not been able to reconcile the disagreement related to the 2013 and 2014 warranty replacement activity. The disagreement relating to the 2014 warranty replacement activity includes approximately 90,100 ties that the Company believes are not warranty-eligible. 2015 On January 23, 2015, UPRR filed a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in the District Court for Douglas County, NE (“Complaint”) against the Company and its subsidiary, CXT, asserting, among other matters, that the Company breached its express warranty, breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and anticipatorily repudiated its warranty obligations, and that UPRR’s exclusive and limited remedy provisions in the supply agreement have failed of their essential purpose which entitles UPRR to recover all incidental and consequential damages. The Complaint seeks to cancel all duties of UPRR under the contract, to adjudge the Company as having no remaining rights under the contracts, and to recover damages in an amount to be determined at trial for the value of unfulfilled warranty replacement ties and ties likely to become warranty eligible, for costs of cover for replacement ties, and for various incidental and consequential damages. The amended 2005 supply agreement provides that UPRR’s exclusive remedy is to receive a replacement tie that meets the contract specifications for each tie that failed to meet the contract specifications or otherwise contained a material defect provided that the Company receives written notice of such failure or defect within 15 years after that tie was produced. The amended 2005 supply agreement provides that the Company’s warranty does not apply to ties that (a) have been repaired or altered without the Company’s written consent in such a way as to affect the stability or reliability thereof, (b) have been subject to misuse, negligence, or accident, or (c) have been improperly maintained or used contrary to the specifications for which such ties were produced. The amended 2005 supply agreement also continues to provide that the Company’s warranty is in lieu of all other express or implied warranties and that neither party shall be subject to or liable for any incidental or consequential damages to the other party. The dispute is largely based on (1) claims submitted that the Company believes are for ties claimed for warranty replacement that are inaccurately rated under concrete tie rating guidelines and procedures agreed to in 2012 and incorporated by amendment to the 2005 supply agreement rated and are not the responsibility of the Company and claims that do not meet the criteria of a warranty replacement and (2) UPRR’s assertion, which the Company vigorously disputes, that UPRR in future years will be entitled to warranty replacement ties for virtually all of the Grand Island ties. Many thousands of Grand Island ties have been performing in track for over ten years. In addition, a significant amount of Grand Island ties were rated by both parties in the excellent category of the rating system. In June 2015, UPRR delivered an additional notice alleging deficiencies in certain ties produced in the Company’s Tucson and Spokane locations and other claimed material breaches which the Company contends are unfounded. The Company again responded to UPRR that it was not in material breach of the amended 2005 supply agreement relating to warranty tie replacements and that the ties in question complied with the specifications provided by UPRR. On June 16 and 17, 2015, UPRR issued a formal notice of the termination of the concrete tie supply agreement as well as the termination of the lease agreement at the Tucson, AZ production facility and rejection and revocation of its prior acceptance of certain ties manufactured at the Company’s Spokane, WA production facility. Since that time, UPRR has discontinued submitting purchase orders to the Company for shipment of warranty replacement ties. On May 29, 2015, the Company and CXT filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims in response to the Complaint, denying liability to UPRR. As a result of UPRR’s subsequent June 16-17, 2015 actions and certain related conduct, the Company on October 5, 2015 amended the pending Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims to add, among other things, assertions that UPRR’s conduct in question was wrongful and unjustified and constituted additional grounds for the affirmative defenses to UPRR’s claims and also for the Company’s counterclaims. 2016 By Scheduling Order dated June 29, 2016, an August 31, 2017 deadline for the completion of fact discovery was established with trial to proceed at some future date after October 30, 2017, and UPRR filed an amended notice of trial to commence on October 30, 2017. 2017 By Third Amended Scheduling Order dated September 26, 2017, a June 29, 2018 deadline for completion of discovery has been established with trial to proceed at some future date on or after October 1, 2018. Throughout 2017, the parties continued to conduct discovery, with various disputes that required and will likely require court resolution. 2018 By Fourth Amended Scheduling Order dated March 21, 2018, certain interim pretrial deadlines for the close of discovery and various submittals were changed but the October 1, 2018 trial date remained in place. During the first three months ended March 31, 2018, the Company continued to complete fact discovery and prepared and exchanged expert reports. The Company intends to continue to engage in discussions in an effort to resolve the UPRR matter. However, we cannot predict that such discussions will be successful, or that the results of the litigation with UPRR, or any settlement or judgment amounts, will reasonably approximate our estimated accruals for loss contingencies. Future potential costs pertaining to UPRR’s claims and the outcome of the UPRR litigation could result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows. As a result of the preliminary status of the litigation and the uncertainty of any potential judgment, an estimate of any additional loss, or a range of additional loss, associated with this litigation cannot be made based upon currently available information. Environmental and Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to national, state, foreign, provincial, and/or local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. The Company’s efforts to comply with environmental regulations may have an adverse effect on its future earnings. On June 5, 2017, a General Notice Letter was received from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) indicating that the Company may be a potentially responsible party regarding the Portland Harbor Superfund Site cleanup along with numerous other companies. By letter dated March 16, 2018, the EPA informed the Company of the proposed schedule for consent decree negotiations to implement the Portland Harbor Superfund Site Record of Decision, with negotiations scheduled to commence by the end of 2019. The Company is reviewing the basis for its identification by the EPA and the nature of the historic operations of an L.B. Foster predecessor on the site. Management does not believe that compliance with the present environmental protection laws will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, competitive position, or capital expenditures of the Company. At March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the Company maintained environmental reserves approximating $6,134 and $6,144, respectively. The following table sets forth the Company’s environmental obligation:
| Environmental liability
Balance at December 31, 2017 | $ | 6,144 |
Additions to environmental obligations | 41 |
Environmental obligations utilized | (51 | )
Balance at March 31, 2018 | $ | 6,134 |
The Company is also subject to other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Legal actions are subject to inherent uncertainties, and future events could change management's assessment of the probability or estimated amount of potential losses from pending or threatened legal actions. Based on available information, it is the opinion of management that the ultimate resolution of pending or threatened legal actions, both individually and in the aggregate, will not result in losses having a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity at March 31, 2018. If management believes that, based on available information, it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss (or additional material loss in excess of any accrual) will be incurred in connection with any legal actions, the Company discloses an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, either individually or in the aggregate, as appropriate, if such an estimate can be made, or discloses that an estimate cannot be made. Based on the Company's assessment at March 31, 2018, no such disclosures were considered necessary.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -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