XML 97 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Royalties The Company has license agreements that require the payment of royalties on sales of licensed products which expire through 2024. Future minimum royalties payable under these agreements are as follows (in thousands):
Year ending December 31, |
2020 | $ | 8,763 |
2021 | 9,327 |
2022 | 9,146 |
2023 | 231 |
2024 | 75 |
Thereafter | — |
Total | $ | 27,542 |
Legal proceedings Wallace EPA Matter Wallace Silversmiths de Puerto Rico, Ltd. (“WSPR”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, operates a manufacturing facility in San Germán, Puerto Rico that is leased from the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (“PRIDCO”). In March 2008, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) announced that the San Germán Ground Water Contamination site in Puerto Rico (the “Site”) had been added to the Superfund National Priorities List due to contamination present in the local drinking water supply. In May 2008, WSPR received from the EPA a Notice of Potential Liability and Request for Information pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 9607(a) and 9604(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). In July 2011, WSPR received a letter from the EPA requesting access to the property that it leases from PRIDCO to conduct an environmental investigation, and the Company granted such access. In February 2013, the EPA requested access to conduct a further environmental investigation at the property. PRIDCO agreed to such access and the Company consented. The EPA conducted a further investigation during 2013 and, in April 2015, notified the Company and PRIDCO that the results from vapor intrusion sampling may warrant the implementation of measures to mitigate potential exposure to sub-slab soil gas. The Company reviewed the information provided by the EPA and requested that PRIDCO, as the property owner, find and implement a solution acceptable to the EPA. While WSPR did not cause the sub-surface condition that resulted in the potential for vapor intrusion, in order to protect the health of its employees and continue its business operations, it has nevertheless implemented corrective action measures to prevent vapor intrusion, such as sealing the floors of the building and conducting periodic air monitoring to address potential exposure. On August 13, 2015, the EPA released its remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RI/FS”) for the Site. On December 11, 2015, the EPA issued the Record of Decision (“ROD”) for an initial operable unit, electing to implement its preferred remedy which consists of soil vapor extraction and dual-phase extraction/in-situ treatment. This selected remedy includes soil vapor extraction (“SVE”) to address soil (vadose zone) source areas at the Site, impermeable cover as necessary for the implementation of SVE, dual phase extraction in the shallow saprolite zone, and in-situ treatment as needed to address residual sources. The EPA’s total net present worth estimated cost for its selected remedy is $7.3 million. The EPA also designated a second operable unit under which the EPA has and will continue to conduct further investigations to determine the nature and extent of groundwater contamination, as well as a determination by the EPA on the necessity of any further response actions to address groundwater contamination. In February 2017, the EPA indicated that it planned to expand its field investigation for the RI/FS to a second operable unit to further determine the nature and extent of the groundwater contamination at and from the Site and to determine the nature of the remedial action needed to address the contamination. The EPA has requested access to the property occupied by WSPR to install monitoring wells and to undertake groundwater sampling as part of this expanded investigation. WSPR has consented to the EPA’s access request, provided that the EPA receives PRIDCO’s consent, as the property owner. WSPR never used the primary contaminant of concern and did not take up its tenancy at the Site until after the EPA had discovered the contamination in the local water supply. The EPA has also issued notices of potential liability to a number of other entities affiliated with the Site, which used the contaminants of concern. In December 2018, the Company, WSPR, and other identified Potentially Responsible Parties affiliated with the Site entered into tolling agreements to extend the statute of limitations for potential claims for the recovery of response costs for the initial operable unit under Section 107 of CERCLA. In February 2020, the tolling agreements were extended to November 2020. The tolling agreements do not constitute in any way an admission or acknowledgment of any fact, conclusion of law or liability by the parties to the agreements. The EPA released its proposed plan for a second operable unit in July 2019. The public comment period for the proposed plan ended on September 10, 2019. On September 30, 2019, the EPA issued the ROD for operable unit 2 (“OU-2”), electing to implement its preferred remedy which consists of in-situ treatment of groundwater and a monitored natural attenuation (MNA) program including monitoring of the plume fringe at the Site. The EPA’s estimated total net present worth cost for its selected remedy is $17.3 million. Accordingly, based on the above uncertainties and variables, it is not possible at this time for the Company to estimate its share of liability, if any, related to this matter. However, in the event of one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter and the impact on the Company’s results of operations could be material. U.S. Customs and Border Protection matter By letter dated August 26, 2019, the Company was advised that U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") had commenced an investigation, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §1592, regarding the Company’s tariff classification of certain tableware and kitchenware. The issue centers on whether such merchandise meets the criteria for reduced duty rates as specified sets as those terms are defined in Chapter 69, Note 6(b), Harmonized Tariff System of the United States. The period of investigation is stated to be from August 26, 2014 to the present. Since being notified of the investigation, the Company has obtained a significant amount of evidence that, the Company believes, supports that the imported products were properly classified as specified sets. The Company's counsel filed a lead Protest and Application for Further Review on February 5, 2020 and will be requesting that CBP suspend the matter until the protest is reviewed and decided by CBP headquarters based on the sufficiency of the evidence presented. In the event CBP accepts the evidence presented, then no additional duties or penalties will be owed. If CBP rejects the Company’s position, then the estimated amount of duties that could be owed is $3.1 million. In such event, it is reasonably possible that additional penalties could be assessed, depending upon the level of culpability found, of up to $6.2 million for negligence and up to $12.4 million for gross negligence. In the event penalties are assessed, the Company will have the opportunity to further contest CBP’s findings and seek cancellation or mitigation of such assessments. Accordingly, based on the above uncertainties and variables, the Company considers the potential losses related to this matter to be reasonably possible, but not probable. However, in the event of one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter and the impact on the Company’s results of operations could be material. Other The Company is, from time to time, involved in other legal proceedings. The Company believes that other current litigation is routine in nature and incidental to the conduct of the Company’s business and that none of this litigation, individually or collectively, would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

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