XML 29 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.4.0.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | (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, product liability, tax audits, patent infringement, employment-related matters and environmental matters. The Company establishes accruals for matters which it believes that losses are probable and can be reasonably estimable. 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. As the remedial action plan has been approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, groundwater remediation began in the fourth quarter of 2015. During the three months ended March 1, 2016 and 2015, environmental remediation costs incurred were immaterial. At March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company accrued a remaining undiscounted liability of $505 and $532, respectively, related to future remediation costs. At March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, $441 and $469, 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. The recorded liability is based on assumptions in the remedial action plan. 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. ﻿ The Company has a legal proceeding, Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al., currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Cause No. 6:14-cv-00225- KNM. The plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Company and others on March 26, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that the Company was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a control device (“CD”) that was incorporated into a Dodge Ram truck purchased by Plaintiff in 2006. Plaintiff alleges that the Company breached express warranties and indemnification provisions by supplying a defective CD that was not capable of performing its intended function. The putative class consists of all Texas residents who own manual transmission Chrysler vehicles model years 1994–2007 equipped with the subject CD. Plaintiff seeks recovery of economic loss damages incurred by him and the putative class members associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly defective CD, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification seeking to certify a class of Texas residents who own or lease certain automobiles sold by Chrysler from 1998–2007. Plaintiff alleges this putative class would include approximately 120,000 people. In the motion for class certification, the Plaintiff states that damages are no more than $1 per person. A hearing on the Plaintiff’s motion for class certification was held on November 16, 2015, and the United States District Court has not yet ruled on class certification. On April 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s indemnification claim; the United States District Court has not yet ruled on whether to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s ruling. Similarly, Royal v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al. is another legal proceeding currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Cause No. 5:14-cv-01410-F. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the Company, Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others on December 19, 2014. Plaintiffs allege that the Company was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a CD that was incorporated into Dodge Ram trucks purchased by Plaintiffs between 1999 and 2006. Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. breached various express and implied warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiffs also seek indemnity from the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. The putative class consists of all owners of vehicles equipped with the subject CD, which includes various Dodge Ram trucks and other manual transmission vehicles manufactured from 1997–2007, which Plaintiffs allege is more than one million vehicles. Plaintiffs seek recovery of economic loss damages associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly defective CD, diminished value of the subject CDs and the trucks in which they were installed, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The amount of compensatory or other damages sought by Plaintiffs and the putative class members is unknown. On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court granted in part the Company’s and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.’s motions for summary judgment, and dismissed four of the Plaintiffs’ five claims against the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of the United States District Court’s ruling, which remains pending. The Company is vigorously defending itself against the Plaintiffs’ allegations, and has and will continue to challenge the claims as well as class action certification. The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not probable or reasonably estimable, and therefore no liability has been recorded for these claims at March 31, 2016. ﻿ In September 2013, two legal proceedings were 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 has been €7,000 ($8,000) for each claim for injunctive relief and monetary damages resulting from such alleged infringement. The Company believes that its products did not infringe on any of the patents claimed by Actia, and the claims are without merit. The Company is vigorously defending itself against these allegations, and it has challenged certain Actia patents in the European Patent Office. In September 2015, the French court ruled in favor of the Company on one claim, which is subject to appeal by Actia. There have been no significant changes to the facts and circumstances related to the remaining claim for the three months ended March 31, 2016. The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not probable between its defenses and challenges to Actia’s patents. As such, no liability has been recorded for these claims at March 31, 2016. ﻿ On May 24, 2013, the State Revenue Services of São Paulo issued a tax deficiency notice against PST claiming that the vehicle tracking and monitoring services it provides should be classified as communication services, and therefore subject to the State Value Added Tax – ICMS. The State Revenue Services assessment imposed the 25.0% ICMS tax on all revenues of PST related to the vehicle tracking and monitoring services rendered during the period from January 2009 through December 2010. The Brazilian real (“R$”) and U.S. dollar equivalent (“$”) of the aggregate tax assessment is approximately R$92,500 ($26,000) which is comprised of Value Added Tax – ICMS of R$13,200 ($3,700) interest of R$11,400 ($3,200) and penalties of R$67,900 ($19,100). ﻿ 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. Management believes, based on the legal opinion of the Company’s Brazilian legal counsel and the results of the Brazil Administrative Court's 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, 2016 and December 31, 2015, 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. There have been no significant changes to the facts and circumstances related to this notice for the three months ended March 31, 2016. 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$26,700 ($7,500) and R$25,400 ($6,500) at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, 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 existing and future 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 including insurance coverage. The Company can provide no assurances that it will not experience material claims 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 in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Product warranty and recall included $2,076 and $1,973 of a long-term liability at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, which is included as a component of other long-term liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. ﻿ The following provides a reconciliation of changes in product warranty and recall liability: ﻿
﻿ |  |  |  |
﻿Three months ended March 31 |  | 2016 |  | 2015
﻿Product warranty and recall at beginning of period | $ | 6,419 | $ | 7,601
﻿Accruals for products shipped during period |  | 1,358 |  | 1,381
﻿Aggregate changes in pre-existing liabilities due to claim developments |  | (302) |  | (57)
﻿Settlements made during the period |  | (348) |  | (1,745)
﻿Product warranty and recall at end of period | $ | 7,127 | $ | 7,180
﻿

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 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration