LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 12 — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Shareholder Lawsuits On February 11, 2011, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the “Court”), against the Company and certain of its current or former officers and directors. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 17, 2009 and August 9, 2010. A lead plaintiff was appointed and an amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2011. The amended complaint named as additional defendants certain of the Company’s current and former directors, certain Tontine entities, and Jeffrey Gendell, a principal of Tontine. The complaint sought to allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and/or Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing or causing to be issued a series of allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the Company’s financial results, operations, and prospects, including with respect to the January 2010 secondary public offering of the Company’s common stock (the “January 2010 Stock Offering”). The plaintiffs alleged that the Company’s statements were false and misleading because, among other things, the Company’s reported financial results during the class period allegedly violated generally accepted accounting principles because they failed to reflect the impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets, and the Company allegedly failed to disclose known trends and other information regarding certain customer relationships at Brad Foote. In support of their claims, the plaintiffs relied in part upon six alleged confidential informants, all of whom are alleged to be former employees of the Company. On November 18, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On April 19, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion. The Court dismissed all claims with prejudice against each of the named current and former officers except for J. Cameron Drecoll and held that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for any alleged misstatements made after March 19, 2010. In addition, the Court dismissed all claims with prejudice against the named Tontine entities and Mr. Gendell. The Court denied the motion with respect to certain of the claims asserted against the Company and Mr. Drecoll. The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses on May 21, 2012. The plaintiffs’ class certification was filed on June 22, 2012, and the parties agreed to a briefing schedule. The parties participated in a mediation session on August 20, 2012, and reached agreement on a settlement of the matter in the amount of $3,915, which is payable by the Company’s insurance carrier. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on March 14, 2013 and granted final approval of the settlement on June 27, 2013. Between February 15, 2011 and March 30, 2011, three putative shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the Court against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors, and certain Tontine entities, seeking to challenge alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, including in connection with the January 2010 Stock Offering. One of the lawsuits also alleged that certain directors violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the Company’s Proxy Statement for its 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Two of the matters pending in the Court were subsequently consolidated, and on May 15, 2012, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated cases and also entered an order dismissing the third case. The Company received a request from the Tontine defendants for indemnification in the derivative suits and the class action lawsuit from Tontine and/or Mr. Gendell pursuant to various agreements related to shares owned by Tontine. The Company maintains directors and officers liability insurance; however, the costs of indemnification for Mr. Gendell and/or Tontine would not be covered by any Company insurance policy. The Company subsequently entered into an agreement with Tontine providing, among other things, for a settlement of these indemnification claims and related matters for a payment of $495. Because of the preliminary nature of these matters, the Company is not able to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with these matters at this time. SEC Inquiry In August 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) seeking documents and other records related to certain accounting practices at Brad Foote. The subpoena was issued in connection with an informal inquiry that the Company received from the SEC in November 2010 arising out of a whistleblower complaint received by the SEC related to revenue recognition, cost accounting and intangible and fixed asset valuations at Brad Foote. The Company has been in regular contact with the SEC, and in its communications the SEC has clarified or supplemented its requests. The Company has produced documents responsive to such requests and completed the process of responding to the subpoena for documents. Following the issuance of subpoenas for testimony in June 2013, the SEC has deposed certain current and former Brad Foote employees. The Company cannot currently predict the outcome of this investigation. The Company does not believe that the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. No estimate regarding the loss or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter is possible at this time. All pending reimbursement requests from Tontine related to the SEC inquiry were resolved in the above-referenced settlement. Environmental The Company is aware of an investigation commenced by the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Illinois (“USAO”), for potential violation of federal environmental laws. On February 15, 2011, pursuant to a search warrant, officials from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) entered and conducted a search of one of Brad Foote’s facilities in Cicero, Illinois (the “Cicero Avenue Facility”), in connection with the alleged improper disposal of industrial wastewater to the sewer. Also on or about February 15, 2011, in connection with the same matter, the Company received a grand jury subpoena requesting testimony and the production of certain documents relating to the Cicero Avenue Facility’s past compliance with certain environmental laws and regulations relating to the generation, discharge and disposal of wastewater from certain of its processes between 2004 and the present. On or about February 23, 2011, the Company received another grand jury subpoena relating to the same investigation, requesting testimony and the production of certain other documents relating to certain of the Cicero Avenue Facility’s employees, environmental and manufacturing processes, and disposal practices. On April 5, 2012, the Company received a letter from the USAO requesting the production of certain financial records from 2008 to the present. The Company has completed its response to the subpoenas and to the USAO’s request. The Company has also voluntarily instituted corrective measures at the Cicero Avenue Facility, including changes to its wastewater disposal practices. On April 12, 2012, the Company received a letter from the USAO advising that Brad Foote is a target of the criminal investigation of the Cicero Avenue Facility, and requesting that Brad Foote agree to a tolling of the applicable statute of limitations for any criminal charges relating to the investigation. Subsequently, Brad Foote has agreed to several extensions to the tolling agreement, and the tolling period now extends to September 27, 2013. There can be no assurances that the conclusion of the investigation will not result in a determination that the Company has violated applicable environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Any violations found, or any criminal or civil fines, penalties and/or other sanctions imposed could be substantial and materially and adversely affect the Company. The Company had recorded a liability of $675 at December 31, 2010, which represented the low end of its estimate of remediation-related costs and expenses; as of June 30, 2013, those initial costs have been incurred, and additional costs have been expensed as incurred. No additional remediation related expenses are anticipated or have been accrued; however, the outcome of the investigation, the liability in connection therewith, and the impact to the Company’s operations cannot be predicted at this time. No estimate regarding the loss or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter is possible at this time. Other The Company is also a party to additional claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, there can be no assurance that the resolution of any particular claim or proceeding would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or liquidity. It is possible that if one or more of the matters described above were decided against the Company, the effects could be material to the Company’s results of operations in the period in which the Company would be required to record or adjust the related liability and could also be material to the Company’s cash flows in the periods the Company would be required to pay such liability.

NOTE 12 — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Shareholder Lawsuits

On February 11, 2011, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the “Court”), against the Company and certain of its current or former officers and directors. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 17, 2009 and August 9, 2010. A lead plaintiff was appointed and an amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2011. The amended complaint named as additional defendants certain of the Company’s current and former directors, certain Tontine entities, and Jeffrey Gendell, a principal of Tontine. The complaint sought to allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and/or Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing or causing to be issued a series of allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the Company’s financial results, operations, and prospects, including with respect to the January 2010 secondary public offering of the Company’s common stock (the “January 2010 Stock Offering”). The plaintiffs alleged that the Company’s statements were false and misleading because, among other things, the Company’s reported financial results during the class period allegedly violated generally accepted accounting principles because they failed to reflect the impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets, and the Company allegedly failed to disclose known trends and other information regarding certain customer relationships at Brad Foote. In support of their claims, the plaintiffs relied in part upon six alleged confidential informants, all of whom are alleged to be former employees of the Company. On November 18, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On April 19, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion. The Court dismissed all claims with prejudice against each of the named current and former officers except for J. Cameron Drecoll and held that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for any alleged misstatements made after March 19, 2010. In addition, the Court dismissed all claims with prejudice against the named Tontine entities and Mr. Gendell. The Court denied the motion with respect to certain of the claims asserted against the Company and Mr. Drecoll. The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses on May 21, 2012. The plaintiffs’ class certification was filed on June 22, 2012, and the parties agreed to a briefing schedule. The parties participated in a mediation session on August 20, 2012, and reached agreement on a settlement of the matter in the amount of $3,915, which is payable by the Company’s insurance carrier. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on March 14, 2013 and granted final approval of the settlement on June 27, 2013.

Between February 15, 2011 and March 30, 2011, three putative shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the Court against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors, and certain Tontine entities, seeking to challenge alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, including in connection with the January 2010 Stock Offering. One of the lawsuits also alleged that certain directors violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the Company’s Proxy Statement for its 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Two of the matters pending in the Court were subsequently consolidated, and on May 15, 2012, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated cases and also entered an order dismissing the third case. The Company received a request from the Tontine defendants for indemnification in the derivative suits and the class action lawsuit from Tontine and/or Mr. Gendell pursuant to various agreements related to shares owned by Tontine. The Company maintains directors and officers liability insurance; however, the costs of indemnification for Mr. Gendell and/or Tontine would not be covered by any Company insurance policy. The Company subsequently entered into an agreement with Tontine providing, among other things, for a settlement of these indemnification claims and related matters for a payment of $495. Because of the preliminary nature of these matters, the Company is not able to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with these matters at this time.

SEC Inquiry

In August 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) seeking documents and other records related to certain accounting practices at Brad Foote. The subpoena was issued in connection with an informal inquiry that the Company received from the SEC in November 2010 arising out of a whistleblower complaint received by the SEC related to revenue recognition, cost accounting and intangible and fixed asset valuations at Brad Foote. The Company has been in regular contact with the SEC, and in its communications the SEC has clarified or supplemented its requests. The Company has produced documents responsive to such requests and completed the process of responding to the subpoena for documents. Following the issuance of subpoenas for testimony in June 2013, the SEC has deposed certain current and former Brad Foote employees. The Company cannot currently predict the outcome of this investigation. The Company does not believe that the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. No estimate regarding the loss or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter is possible at this time. All pending reimbursement requests from Tontine related to the SEC inquiry were resolved in the above-referenced settlement.

Environmental

The Company is aware of an investigation commenced by the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Illinois (“USAO”), for potential violation of federal environmental laws. On February 15, 2011, pursuant to a search warrant, officials from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) entered and conducted a search of one of Brad Foote’s facilities in Cicero, Illinois (the “Cicero Avenue Facility”), in connection with the alleged improper disposal of industrial wastewater to the sewer. Also on or about February 15, 2011, in connection with the same matter, the Company received a grand jury subpoena requesting testimony and the production of certain documents relating to the Cicero Avenue Facility’s past compliance with certain environmental laws and regulations relating to the generation, discharge and disposal of wastewater from certain of its processes between 2004 and the present. On or about February 23, 2011, the Company received another grand jury subpoena relating to the same investigation, requesting testimony and the production of certain other documents relating to certain of the Cicero Avenue Facility’s employees, environmental and manufacturing processes, and disposal practices. On April 5, 2012, the Company received a letter from the USAO requesting the production of certain financial records from 2008 to the present. The Company has completed its response to the subpoenas and to the USAO’s request. The Company has also voluntarily instituted corrective measures at the Cicero Avenue Facility, including changes to its wastewater disposal practices. On April 12, 2012, the Company received a letter from the USAO advising that Brad Foote is a target of the criminal investigation of the Cicero Avenue Facility, and requesting that Brad Foote agree to a tolling of the applicable statute of limitations for any criminal charges relating to the investigation. Subsequently, Brad Foote has agreed to several extensions to the tolling agreement, and the tolling period now extends to September 27, 2013. There can be no assurances that the conclusion of the investigation will not result in a determination that the Company has violated applicable environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Any violations found, or any criminal or civil fines, penalties and/or other sanctions imposed could be substantial and materially and adversely affect the Company. The Company had recorded a liability of $675 at December 31, 2010, which represented the low end of its estimate of remediation-related costs and expenses; as of June 30, 2013, those initial costs have been incurred, and additional costs have been expensed as incurred. No additional remediation related expenses are anticipated or have been accrued; however, the outcome of the investigation, the liability in connection therewith, and the impact to the Company’s operations cannot be predicted at this time. No estimate regarding the loss or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter is possible at this time.

Other

The Company is also a party to additional claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, there can be no assurance that the resolution of any particular claim or proceeding would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or liquidity. It is possible that if one or more of the matters described above were decided against the Company, the effects could be material to the Company’s results of operations in the period in which the Company would be required to record or adjust the related liability and could also be material to the Company’s cash flows in the periods the Company would be required to pay such liability.