Commitments and Contingencies | 12. Commitments and Contingencies Significant new commitments, material changes in commitments and ongoing contingencies as of December 31, 2015, not disclosed elsewhere, are as follows: Compensation Arrangements — Cash Performance Unit Awards. The Compensation Committee has approved various grants of performance unit awards to certain officers and employees, to be settled in cash, based on the achievement of certain stipulated goals, all of which are described in detail in the Form 10-K, including fiscal 2016 grants made in the December 2015 quarter. Headwaters currently expects that amounts could be earned in fiscal 2016 under the terms of the fiscal 2016 awards. Also, as explained in the Form 10-K, the amounts accrued under the fiscal 2014 awards are subject to adjustment for cash flows generated in fiscal 2016 and the amounts accrued under the fiscal 2015 awards are subject to adjustment for cash flows generated in fiscal 2016 and 2017. Cash-Settled SAR Grants. In 2012, the Committee approved grants to certain officers and employees of approximately 1.0 million cash-settled SARs, approximately 0.1 million of which remain outstanding as of December 31, 2015. These SARs, which are considered liability awards, vested in annual installments through September 30, 2014 and are settled in cash upon exercise by the employee. As of December 31, 2015, approximately $1.4 million has been accrued for outstanding awards because the stock price at that date was above the grant-date stock price of $1.85. Changes in Headwaters’ stock price (whether positive or negative) through the dates employees exercise the SARs will result in adjustments to compensation expense and will be reflected in Headwaters’ statement of income each quarter in fiscal 2016, until the SARs are exercised or expire on September 30, 2016. Compensation expense (benefit) for all cash-settled SARs was approximately $1.3 million and $(0.2) million for the three months ended December 31, 2014 and 2015, respectively. Property, Plant and Equipment — As of December 31, 2015, Headwaters was committed to spend approximately $6.9 million on capital projects that were in various stages of completion. Legal Matters — Headwaters has ongoing litigation and asserted claims which have been incurred during the normal course of business, including the specific matters discussed below. Headwaters intends to vigorously defend or resolve these matters by settlement, as appropriate. Management does not currently believe that the outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Headwaters’ operations, cash flow or financial position. Headwaters incurred approximately $0.5 million of expense for legal matters during each of the quarters ended December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2015. Costs for outside legal counsel comprised a majority of Headwaters’ litigation-related costs in the periods presented. Headwaters currently believes the range of potential loss for all unresolved legal matters, excluding costs for outside counsel, is from $2.5 million up to the amounts sought by claimants and has recorded a liability as of December 31, 2015 of $2.5 million. The substantial claims and damages sought by claimants in excess of this amount are not currently deemed to be probable. Headwaters’ outside counsel and management currently believe that unfavorable outcomes of outstanding litigation beyond the amount accrued are neither probable nor remote. Accordingly, management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Headwaters’ liability, nor is it possible to estimate what litigation-related costs will be in future periods. The specific matters discussed below raise difficult and complex legal and factual issues, and the resolution of these issues is subject to many uncertainties, including the facts and circumstances of each case, the jurisdiction in which each case is brought, and the future decisions of juries, judges, and arbitrators. Therefore, although management believes that the claims asserted against Headwaters in the named cases lack merit, there is a possibility of material losses in excess of the amount accrued if one or more of the cases were to be determined adversely against Headwaters for a substantial amount of the damages asserted. I t is possible that a change in the estimate of probable liability could occur, and the changes could be material. Additionally, as with any litigation, these proceedings require that Headwaters incur substantial costs, including attorneys’ fees, managerial time and other personnel resources, in pursuing resolution. Fentress Families Trust. VFL Technology Corporation (VFL), acquired by HRI in 2004, provides services related to fly ash management to Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO). In February 2012, 383 plaintiffs, most of whom are residents living in the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, filed a complaint in the State of Virginia Chesapeake Circuit Court against 15 defendants, including VEPCO and related companies, and certain other persons associated with the Battlefield Golf Course, including owners, developers, contractors, and others, including VFL and Headwaters, alleging causes of action for nuisance and negligence. The complaint alleges that fly ash used to construct the golf course was carried in the air and contaminated water exposing plaintiffs to dangerous chemicals and causing property damage. Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages of approximately $850.0 million for removal and remediation of the fly ash and the water supply, $1.9 billion for vexation, $8.0 million and other unspecified amounts for personal injuries, and $55.0 million as damages to properties, plus prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and costs. In a related case, other plaintiffs have filed a separate lawsuit asserting the same claims against the same defendants claiming additional damages totaling approximately $307.2 million. In August 2013 the court ruled on VEPCO’s demurrer ordering that claims for personal injury or property damage based upon allegations of groundwater contamination were dismissed but that claims of nuisance and negligence based upon allegations of air-borne ash and contaminated surface water would not be dismissed. These cases are based on substantially the same alleged circumstances asserted in complaints filed by the plaintiffs in 2009 and voluntarily dismissed in 2010. Discovery is underway. HRI has filed claims for defense and indemnity with several of its insurers. In 2010, HRI filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against two insurers that denied coverage based on allegations in the 2009 Fentress complaints. The District Court ruled in the insurers’ favor, which ruling was affirmed in October 2014 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Another insurer continues to pay for the defense of the underlying cases under a reservation of rights. The relatively novel fly ash claims of the plaintiffs together with multiple insurance policies and policy periods make insurance coverage issues complex and uncertain. Moreover, plaintiffs’ total claims exceed the potential limits of insurance available to HRI. Because resolution of the litigation is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of HRI’s liability, or the insurers’ obligation to indemnify HRI against loss, if any. CPM. In August 2015, CPM Virginia, LLC (CPM) the Battlefield Golf Course developer, filed a complaint in the State of Virginia Richmond Circuit Court against VEPCO, VFL, and Headwaters related to construction of the golf course described in the Fentress Families Trust case. The complaint alleges breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, estoppel, nuisance, breach of warranties, negligence, and interference with prospective business advantage. CPM’s complaint seeks $840 million in compensatory damages plus attorney fees and costs. In September 2015, CPM filed a separate complaint in the State of Virginia Chesapeake Circuit Court against VFL and Headwaters also related to construction of the golf course described in the Fentress Families Trust case, alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory judgment and compensatory damages in the amount of $0.5 million plus attorney fees and costs. CPM alleges that HRI should indemnify CPM for past and future expenses incurred in defending against the Fentress complaints. VFL and Headwaters have not been served with either of the CPM complaints and have only recently learned that they were filed in 2015. Because resolution of the CPM litigation is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of VFL or Headwaters’ liability, or the insurers’ obligation to indemnify VFL and Headwaters against loss, if any. Clary. In August 2014, 77 plaintiffs filed suit in the State of West Virginia Circuit Court of Mason County against four defendants, including American Electric Power Co., Inc., Ohio Power Company and an individual. Plaintiffs claim injury resulting from exposure to coal combustion waste from the Gavin Power Plant in Cheshire, Ohio while working as employees of contractors in the Gavin landfill. Plaintiffs claim wrongful death, failure to warn and protect, negligence per se, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, heightened duty, strict liability, battery, fraud, fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation and related causes of action, seeking unspecified damages for medical monitoring and other costs, loss of consortium, lost wages, personal injuries, and punitive damages. In September 2015, the Ohio Power Company filed a third-party complaint against Headwaters and two other entities who were contractors to Ohio Power Company. Ohio Power Company claims that the third-party defendant contractors operated the Gavin landfill and that plaintiffs are former employees or family members of the third-party defendants. Ohio Power Company denies the plaintiffs’ allegations, but states that Headwaters and the other third-party defendants are required to indemnify Ohio Power and provide contribution to the extent that Ohio Power is found liable to plaintiffs, including interest, attorney fees, and costs. The case is stayed while issues about the proper venue for the litigation are resolved. Because resolution of the litigation is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Headwaters’ liability, or whether insurers have an obligation to indemnify Headwaters against loss, if any. Building Products Matters. There are litigation and pending and threatened claims made against certain subsidiaries within Headwaters’ building products segment, with respect to several types of exterior finish systems manufactured and sold by its subsidiaries for application by contractors on residential and commercial buildings. The plaintiffs or claimants in these matters typically allege that the structures have suffered damage from water penetration due to some alleged failure of the roofing product or wall system. The claims most often involve alleged liabilities associated with certain roofing, stucco, and architectural stone products which are produced and sold by certain subsidiaries of Headwaters. The foregoing litigation and claims typically cite damages for alleged personal injuries, property damage, economic loss, unfair business practices and punitive damages. Claims made against Headwaters and its subsidiaries generally have been paid by their insurers, subject to Headwaters’ payment of deductibles or self-insured retentions, although such insurance carriers typically have issued “reservation of rights” letters. There is no guarantee of insurance coverage or continuing coverage. These and future proceedings may result in substantial costs to Headwaters and its subsidiaries, including attorney fees, managerial time and other personnel resources and costs. Adverse resolution of these proceedings could have a materially negative effect on Headwaters’ businesses, financial condition, and results of operation, and its ability to meet its financial obligations. Although Headwaters carries general and product liability insurance, subject to exclusions and self-insured retentions, Headwaters cannot assure that such insurance coverage will remain available, that Headwaters’ insurance carriers will remain viable, will accept claims or that the insured amounts will cover all claims in excess of self-insured retentions. Future rate increases may also make such insurance uneconomical for Headwaters to maintain. Because resolution of the litigation, claims, and insurance coverage is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Headwaters’ or its subsidiaries’ liability. Construction Materials Matters . In addition, there are litigation and pending and threatened claims made against HRI within Headwaters’ construction materials segment, with respect to coal combustion products. The plaintiffs or claimants in these matters have alleged that inhalation or other exposure to fly ash is unsafe, and that HRI has failed to warn about the alleged dangers of fly ash exposure and the use of adequate protection, resulting in personal injury, contamination of land and water, and diminution in property value. The Fentress Family Trust and Clary cases summarized above are examples of these types of claims. The application of relatively novel fly ash claims to insurance policies is complex and uncertain and HRI has had limited success in tendering defense of such claims to insurers, which is dependent upon the alleged facts and specific policy terms. Adverse resolution of these claims and insurance coverage disputes could have a materially negative effect on Headwaters’ businesses, financial condition, and results of operation, and its ability to meet its financial obligations. Because resolution of the litigation, claims, and insurance coverage disputes is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of HRI’s liability. Discontinued Coal Cleaning Operations. The following litigation relates to the discontinued coal cleaning business: RLF Chinook Properties. In September 2015, RLF Chinook Properties, LLC filed suit in the State of Indiana Circuit Court of Clay against Covol Fuels No. 2, LLC, Headwaters Energy Services Corp., other Covol companies (collectively, “Covol”), as well as BRC Chinook, LLC and other BRC affiliates (collectively, “BRC”). Covol entered into a coal recovery agreement with plaintiff in 2007 with respect to coal at the RLF Chinook site. Covol assigned the coal recovery agreement to BRC in 2013. Plaintiff alleges that BRC has failed to fulfill certain obligations under the coal recovery agreement, including failure to submit reclamation plans to State of Indiana for approval and to restore and reclaim the site per the approved plan. Plaintiff alleges that Covol is liable for the claimed breaches under the coal recovery agreement, and seeks unspecified damages, together with attorney fees and costs. Covol has answered the complaint denying the allegations. Because resolution of the litigation is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Covol’s liability. Other. Headwaters and its subsidiaries are also involved in other legal proceedings that have arisen in the normal course of business. Because resolution of these proceedings is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Headwaters’ liability. |