Contingencies | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2015 |
Contingencies [Abstract] | |
Contingencies | Note 17 – Contingencies |
|
|
|
The Company is involved in various warranty and repair claims and, in certain cases, related pending and threatened legal proceedings with its customers in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the Company's potential losses in excess of the accrued warranty and legal provisions, if any, are not expected to be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. |
|
|
|
On July 8, 2013, the Company filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "Illinois Court"). The case names as defendants the United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Services Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "USW"), as well as approximately 650 individual Retiree Defendants (as defined in the Complaint), and was assigned Case No 1:13-cv-4889. |
|
|
|
As described in the Complaint, pursuant to the 2005 Settlement Agreement among the Company, the USW and the Retiree Defendants, the Company agreed to make certain levels of contributions to medical coverage for the Retiree Defendants and to continue to provide life insurance benefits at their amount at that time under certain of the Company's employee welfare benefit plans. The 2005 Settlement Agreement expressly provided that, as of November 30, 2012, the Company could cease making these contributions. In June 2011, the Company and the USW began discussing the possibility of an extension beyond November 30, 2012 for the Company's contributions to retiree medical coverage and life insurance benefits at a reduced amount and on other mutually acceptable terms. The Company engaged in voluntary negotiations for two years with the USW and counsel for the Retiree Defendants in an effort to reach a consensual agreement regarding such medical and life insurance benefits, but the parties were unable to reach a final agreement. The Company terminated, effective November 1, 2013, its contributions for medical coverage provided to the Retiree Defendants and the provision of life insurance benefits and is seeking declaratory relief to confirm its rights under ERISA to reduce or terminate retiree medical coverage and life insurance benefits pursuant to the plans that were the subject of the 2005 Settlement Agreement. |
|
|
|
On July 9, 2013, the USW and certain Retiree Defendants (collectively, the "Pennsylvania Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania Court"), captioned as Zanghi, et al. v. FreightCar America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-146. The complaint filed with the Pennsylvania Court alleges that the Company does not have the right to terminate welfare benefits previously provided to the Retiree Defendants and requests, among other relief, entry of a judgment finding that the Retiree Defendants have a vested right to specified welfare benefits. |
|
|
|
On July 26, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs filed with the Illinois Court a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or in the Alternative, to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), as well as a Motion to Stay and/or Prevent Plaintiff from Obtaining Defaults against the Retiree Defendants. On August 5, 2013, the Company filed with the Pennsylvania Court a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or in the Alternative, to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). On January 14, 2014, the Pennsylvania Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss and, on January 16, 2014, the Illinois Court transferred the Company's case to the Pennsylvania Court. On January 31, 2014, the Company filed a motion to consolidate both cases before the Pennsylvania Court. On April 3, 2014, the Pennsylvania Court entered an order (the "Initial Procedural Order") that, among other things, consolidated both cases before the Pennsylvania Court, certified a class for purposes of the consolidated actions, established discovery parameters and deadlines and established a briefing schedule applicable to the parties' cross motions for summary judgment as to liability only. On July 17, 2014, the parties filed with the Pennsylvania Court their respective motions for summary judgment as to liability.On March 30, 2015, the Pennsylvania Court issued an order denying both parties' summary judgment motions. A trial has been scheduled to commence on August 25, 2015 in the Pennsylvania Court. The ultimate outcome of the proceedings before the Pennsylvania Court cannot be determined at this time. |
|
|
|
On September 5, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs and certain putative class representatives filed a Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the "TRO Motion") with the Pennsylvania Court. In the TRO Motion, the plaintiffs requested that the Pennsylvania Court enter an injunction requiring the Company to continue to make monthly contributions at the same rate established by the 2005 Settlement Agreement until the parties' dispute is fully adjudicated on the merits. Following entry of the Initial Procedural Order, the Pennsylvania Court denied the TRO Motion without prejudice. |
|
|
|
The Company has recorded postretirement benefit plan obligations, a substantial portion of which relates to the dispute now before the Pennsylvania Court (see Note 16). |
|
|
|
In addition to the foregoing, the Company is involved in certain other pending and threatened legal proceedings, including commercial disputes and workers' compensation and employee matters arising out of the conduct of its business. While the ultimate outcome of these other legal proceedings cannot be determined at this time, it is the opinion of management that the resolution of these other actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. |