(10) Commitments and Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to a broad range of claims and legal proceedings that relate to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement, product liability, employment-related matters and environmental matters. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these matters, the Company is of the opinion that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations or financial position.

As a result of environmental studies performed at the Company’s former facility located in Sarasota, Florida, the Company became aware of soil and groundwater contamination at the site. The Company engaged an environmental engineering consultant to assess the level of contamination and to develop a remediation and monitoring plan for the site. Soil remediation at the site was completed during the year ended December 31, 2010. Ground water remediation will begin in the second quarter of 2015, as the remedial action plan has been approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. During the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, environmental remediation costs incurred were immaterial. At March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company had accrued an undiscounted liability of $865 and $876, respectively, related to future remediation. At March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, $801 and $813, respectively, was recorded as a component of accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets while the remaining amount was recorded as a component of other long-term liabilities. A majority of the costs associated with the recorded liability will be incurred at the start of the groundwater remediation, with the balance relating to monitoring costs to be incurred over multiple years. Although the Company sold the Sarasota facility and related property in December 2011, the liability to remediate the site contamination remains the responsibility of the Company. Due to the ongoing site remediation, the closing terms of the sale agreement included a requirement for the Company to maintain a $2,000 letter of credit for the benefit of the buyer.

In September 2013, a legal proceeding was initiated by Actia Automotive (“Actia”) in a French court (the tribunal de grande instance de Paris) alleging infringement of its patents by the Company’s Electronics segment. The euro (“€”) and U.S. dollar equivalent (“$”) that Actia is seeking is €14,000 ($15,000) for injunctive relief and monetary damages resulting from such alleged infringement. The Company believes that its products did not infringe on any of the patents claimed by Actia, and the claim is without merit. Therefore it is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not probable. As such, no liability has been recorded for this claim. There have been no significant changes to the facts and circumstances related to this claim for the three months ended March 31, 2015.

On May 24, 2013, the State Revenue Services of São Paulo issued a tax deficiency notice against PST claiming that the vehicle tracking and monitoring services it provides should be classified as communication services, and therefore subject to the State Value Added Tax – ICMS. The State Revenue Services assessment imposed the 25.0% ICMS tax on all revenues of PST related to the vehicle tracking and monitoring services rendered during the period from January 2009 through December 2010. The Brazilian real (“R$”) and U.S. dollar equivalent (“$”) of the aggregate tax assessment is approximately R$92,500 ($28,800) which is comprised of Value Added Tax – ICMS of R$13,200 ($4,100), interest of R$11,400 ($3,600) and penalties of R$67,900 ($21,100).

The Company believes that the vehicle tracking and monitoring services are non-communication services, as defined under Brazilian tax law, subject to the municipal ISS tax, not communication services subject to state ICMS tax as claimed by the State Revenue Services of São Paulo. PST has, and will continue to collect the municipal ISS tax on the vehicle tracking and monitoring services in compliance with Brazilian tax law and will defend its tax position. PST has received a legal opinion that the merits of the case are favorable to PST, determining among other things that the imposition on the subsidiary of the State ICMS by the State Revenue Services of São Paulo is not in accordance with the Brazilian tax code. In April 2015, the Tribunal of Taxes and Imposts of the State of São Paulo ruled in favor of PST that its tracking and monitoring services are not subject to state ICMS tax. However, the written opinion of that tribunal has not yet been issued and is subject to appeal by the State Revenue Services of São Paulo to a higher court. Management believes, based on the legal opinion of the Company’s Brazilian legal counsel, the recent favorable legal ruling in favor of PST and the results of the Brazil Administrative Court's binding ruling in favor of another vehicle tracking and monitoring company related to the tax deficiency notice it received, the likelihood of loss is not probable although it may take years to resolve. As a result of the above, as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, no accrual has been recorded with respect to the tax assessment. An unfavorable judgment on this issue for the years assessed and for subsequent years could result in significant costs to PST and adversely affect its results of operations.

In addition, PST has civil, labor and other tax contingencies for which the likelihood of loss is deemed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, by the Company’s legal advisors in Brazil. As a result, no provision has been recorded with respect to these contingencies, which amounted to R$25,842 ($8,100) and R$37,237 ($14,000) at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. An unfavorable outcome on these contingencies could result in significant cost to PST and adversely affect its results of operations.

Product Warranty and Recall

Amounts accrued for product warranty and recall claims are established based on the Company's best estimate of the amounts necessary to settle future and existing claims on products sold as of the balance sheet dates. These accruals are based on several factors including past experience, production changes, industry developments and various other considerations. The Company can provide no assurances that it will not experience material claims in the future or that it will not incur significant costs to defend or settle such claims beyond the amounts accrued or beyond what the Company may recover from its suppliers. The current portion of product warranty and recall is included as a component of accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Product warranty and recall included $1,188 and $1,204 of a long-term liability at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively, which is included as a component of other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

The following provides a reconciliation of changes in product warranty and recall liability:


Three months ended March 31		2015		2014
Product warranty and recall at beginning of period	$	7,601	$	6,414
Accruals for products shipped during period		1,381		1,122
Aggregate changes in pre-existing liabilities due to claim developments		(57)		258
Settlements made during the period		(1,745)		(540)
Product warranty and recall at end of period	$	7,180	$	7,254