LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 12 — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Shareholder Lawsuits Between February 15, 2011 and March 30, 2011, three putative shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “USDC”) 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 secondary public offering of the Company’s common stock. One of the lawsuits also alleged that certain directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with the Company’s Proxy Statement for its 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Two of the matters pending in the USDC were subsequently consolidated, and on May 15, 2012, the USDC granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated cases and also entered an order dismissing the third case. On January 17, 2014, the Company and the plaintiffs from the consolidated derivative lawsuit filed a joint motion to reopen the derivative action and preliminarily approve a derivative settlement. The USDC subsequently reopened the derivative action and granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 3, 2014. The settlement resolves outstanding shareholder derivative claims, including those raised in certain shareholder demand letters received by the Board. The terms of the settlement include the adoption by the Company of certain corporate governance reforms, along with other remedial measures. The settlement provides for the Company’s insurance carrier and/or the Company to pay plaintiffs’ counsel’s attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $600. The USDC granted final approval of the settlement on April 3, 2014. The Company received a request from the Tontine defendants for indemnification in the derivative lawsuits from Tontine and/or Mr. Gendell pursuant to various agreements related to shares of the Company’s common stock 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 the settlement of these indemnification claims and related matters in consideration for a payment in the amount of $495, which was paid in 2013. SEC Inquiry In August 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) seeking documents related to certain accounting practices at Brad Foote. The subpoena was issued following an informal inquiry that the Company received from the SEC in November 2010, which likely arose out of a whistleblower complaint that the SEC received 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 clarified or supplemented the requests for documents contained in the SEC’s subpoena. 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, the SEC has deposed certain current and former Company 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 On February 15, 2011, pursuant to a search warrant, officials from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) entered and conducted a search of Brad Foote’s facility at 1309 Cicero Avenue 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 United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Illinois (“USAO”) requesting the production of certain financial records from 2008 to the present. The Company completed its response to the subpoenas and to the USAO’s request and has also voluntarily instituted corrective measures at the Cicero Avenue Facility, including changes to its wastewater disposal practices. On September 24, 2013, the USAO commenced a criminal action in the USDC based on this investigation. Subsequently, Brad Foote entered into a plea agreement with the USAO (the “Plea Agreement”) with regard to this criminal action, pursuant to which Brad Foote agreed to plead guilty to one count of knowingly violating the Clean Water Act, Title 33, United States Code, Section 1319(c)(2)(A) and pay a $1,500 fine (payable in three annual installments of $500 within three years of the date of sentencing), subject to the USDC’s approval of the Plea Agreement. Brad Foote pled guilty pursuant to the Plea Agreement on November 13, 2013, and the USDC approved the Plea Agreement on February 19, 2014. Other The Company is also a party to additional claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which is deemed to be individually significant at this time. 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

Between February 15, 2011 and March 30, 2011, three putative shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “USDC”) 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 secondary public offering of the Company’s common stock. One of the lawsuits also alleged that certain directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with the Company’s Proxy Statement for its 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Two of the matters pending in the USDC were subsequently consolidated, and on May 15, 2012, the USDC granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated cases and also entered an order dismissing the third case. On January 17, 2014, the Company and the plaintiffs from the consolidated derivative lawsuit filed a joint motion to reopen the derivative action and preliminarily approve a derivative settlement. The USDC subsequently reopened the derivative action and granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 3, 2014. The settlement resolves outstanding shareholder derivative claims, including those raised in certain shareholder demand letters received by the Board. The terms of the settlement include the adoption by the Company of certain corporate governance reforms, along with other remedial measures. The settlement provides for the Company’s insurance carrier and/or the Company to pay plaintiffs’ counsel’s attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $600. The USDC granted final approval of the settlement on April 3, 2014.

The Company received a request from the Tontine defendants for indemnification in the derivative lawsuits from Tontine and/or Mr. Gendell pursuant to various agreements related to shares of the Company’s common stock 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 the settlement of these indemnification claims and related matters in consideration for a payment in the amount of $495, which was paid in 2013.

SEC Inquiry

In August 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) seeking documents related to certain accounting practices at Brad Foote. The subpoena was issued following an informal inquiry that the Company received from the SEC in November 2010, which likely arose out of a whistleblower complaint that the SEC received 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 clarified or supplemented the requests for documents contained in the SEC’s subpoena. 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, the SEC has deposed certain current and former Company 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

On February 15, 2011, pursuant to a search warrant, officials from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) entered and conducted a search of Brad Foote’s facility at 1309 Cicero Avenue 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 United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Illinois (“USAO”) requesting the production of certain financial records from 2008 to the present. The Company completed its response to the subpoenas and to the USAO’s request and has also voluntarily instituted corrective measures at the Cicero Avenue Facility, including changes to its wastewater disposal practices. On September 24, 2013, the USAO commenced a criminal action in the USDC based on this investigation. Subsequently, Brad Foote entered into a plea agreement with the USAO (the “Plea Agreement”) with regard to this criminal action, pursuant to which Brad Foote agreed to plead guilty to one count of knowingly violating the Clean Water Act, Title 33, United States Code, Section 1319(c)(2)(A) and pay a $1,500 fine (payable in three annual installments of $500 within three years of the date of sentencing), subject to the USDC’s approval of the Plea Agreement. Brad Foote pled guilty pursuant to the Plea Agreement on November 13, 2013, and the USDC approved the Plea Agreement on February 19, 2014.

Other

The Company is also a party to additional claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which is deemed to be individually significant at this time. 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.