| Commitments And Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies We are involved in various legal proceedings that have arisen in the normal course of operations, including the proceedings summarized below. The effect of the outcome of these matters on our financial statements cannot be predicted with certainty as any such effect depends on the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. Other than the litigation described below, we do not believe that any of our outstanding litigation would have a material adverse effect on our business or prospects. Environmental. We are subject to a wide variety of laws and regulations concerning the protection of the environment, both with respect to the operations at many of our properties and with respect to remediating environmental conditions that may exist at our own or other properties. We accrue for environmental expenses resulting from existing conditions that relate to past operations when the costs are probable and reasonably estimable. In the acquisition agreement pursuant to which a predecessor to Tyco sold our businesses to a previous owner in August 1999, Tyco agreed to indemnify us and our affiliates, among other things, for all “Excluded Liabilities.” Excluded Liabilities include, among other things, substantially all liabilities relating to the time prior to August 1999, including environmental liabilities. The indemnity survives indefinitely. Tyco’s indemnity does not cover liabilities to the extent caused by us or the operation of our businesses after August 1999, nor does it cover liabilities arising with respect to businesses or sites acquired after August 1999. Since 2007, Tyco has engaged in multiple corporate changes. While none of these transactions directly affects the indemnification obligations of the Tyco indemnitors under the 1999 acquisition agreement, the result of such transactions is that the assets of, and control over, such Tyco indemnitors has changed. Should any of these Tyco indemnitors become financially unable or fail to comply with the terms of the indemnity, we may be responsible for such obligations or liabilities. In September 1987, we implemented an Administrative Consent Order (“ACO”) for our Burlington, New Jersey property, which was required under the New Jersey Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act (now known as the Industrial Site Recovery Act). The ACO required soil and ground-water cleanup, and we completed, and received final approval on, the soil cleanup required by the ACO. We retained this property when we sold our former U.S. Pipe segment. We expect ground-water issues as well as issues associated with the demolition of former manufacturing facilities at this site will continue and remediation by us could be required. Long-term ground-water monitoring may also be required, but we do not know how long such monitoring would be required and do not believe monitoring or further remediation costs, if any, will have a material adverse effect on any of our financial statements. On July 13, 2010, Rohcan Investments Limited, the former owner of property leased by Mueller Canada Ltd. and located in Milton, Ontario, filed suit against Mueller Canada Ltd. and its directors seeking C$10.0 million in damages arising from the defendants’ alleged environmental contamination of the property and breach of lease. Mueller Canada Ltd. leased the property from 1988 through 2008. We are pursuing indemnification from a former owner for certain potential liabilities that are alleged in this lawsuit, and we have accrued for other liabilities not covered by indemnification. On December 7, 2011, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The purchaser of U.S. Pipe has been identified as a “potentially responsible party” (“PRP”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“Superfund”) in connection with a former manufacturing facility operated by U.S. Pipe that was in the vicinity of a Superfund site located in North Birmingham, Alabama. Under the terms of the acquisition agreement relating to our sale of U.S. Pipe, we agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain environmental liabilities, including those arising out of the former manufacturing site located in North Birmingham. Accordingly, the purchaser tendered the matter to us for indemnification, which we accepted. Ultimate liability for the site will depend on many factors that have not yet been determined, including the determination of EPA’s remediation costs, the number and financial viability of the other PRPs (there are four other PRPs currently) and the determination of the final allocation of the costs among the PRPs, if any. Accordingly, because the amount of such costs cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, no amounts were accrued for this matter at June 30, 2016 . Walter Energy . Each member of the Walter Energy consolidated group, which included us (including our subsidiaries) through December 14, 2006, is jointly and severally liable for the federal income tax liability of each other member of the consolidated group for any year in which it is a member of the group at any time during such year. Accordingly, we could be liable in the event any such federal income tax liability is incurred, and not discharged, by any other member of the Walter Energy consolidated group for any period during which we were included in the Walter Energy consolidated group. Walter Energy effectively controlled all of our tax decisions for periods during which we were a member of the Walter Energy consolidated group for federal income tax purposes and certain combined, consolidated or unitary state and local income tax groups. Under the terms of an income tax allocation agreement between us and Walter Energy, dated May 26, 2006, we generally computed our tax liability on a stand-alone basis, but Walter Energy has sole authority to respond to and conduct all tax proceedings (including tax audits) relating to our federal income and combined state tax returns, to file all such tax returns on our behalf and to determine the amount of our liability to (or entitlement to payment from) Walter Energy for such previous periods. According to Walter Energy’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on November 5, 2015 (“Walter November 2015 Filing”), a dispute exists with the IRS with regard to federal income taxes for years 1980 to 1994 and 1999 to 2001 allegedly owed by the Walter Energy consolidated group, which included U.S. Pipe during these periods. As a matter of law, we are jointly and severally liable for any final tax determination, which means we would be liable in the event Walter Energy is unable to pay any amounts owed. According to the Walter November 2015 Filing, at September 30, 2015, Walter Energy had $33.0 million of accruals for unrecognized tax benefits on the matters subject to disposition. In the Walter November 2015 Filing, Walter Energy stated it believed it had sufficient accruals to address any claims, including interest and penalties, and did not believe that any potential difference between any final settlements and amounts accrued would have a material effect on Walter Energy’s financial position, but such potential difference could be material to its results of operations in a future reporting period. Walter Energy filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in July 2015, which is pending before the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama (“Bankruptcy Case”). We continue to monitor the progress of the Bankruptcy Case to determine whether we could be liable for all or a portion of this federal income tax liability if it is incurred, and not discharged, for any period during which we were included in the Walter Energy consolidated group. On January 11, 2016, the IRS filed a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Case, alleging that Walter Energy owes amounts for prior taxable periods (specifically, 1983-1994, 2000-2002 and 2005) in an aggregate amount of $554.3 million ( $229.1 million of which the IRS claims is entitled to priority status in the Bankruptcy Case). The IRS asserts that its claim is based on an alleged settlement of Walter Energy’s tax liability for the 1983-1995 taxable periods in connection with Walter Energy’s prior bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida. In the proof of claim, the IRS included an alternative calculation in the event the alleged settlement of the prior bankruptcy court is found to be non-binding, which provides for a claim by the IRS in an aggregate amount of $860.4 million ( $535.3 million of which the IRS claims is entitled to priority status in the Bankruptcy Case). According to a current report on Form 8-K filed by Walter Energy with the SEC on April 1, 2016 (“Walter April 2016 Filing”), on March 31, 2016, Walter Energy closed on the sale of substantially all of Walter Energy's Alabama assets pursuant to the provisions of Sections 105, 363 and 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Walter April 2016 Filing further stated that Walter Energy would have no further material business operations after April 1, 2016 and Walter Energy was evaluating its options with respect to the wind down of its remaining assets. The asset sale did not impact the IRS’ proof of claim filed in the Bankruptcy Case and the proof of claim, as well as the alleged tax liability thereunder, remain unresolved. We cannot predict whether or to what extent we may become liable for the tax-related amounts of the Walter Energy consolidated group asserted in the IRS’ proof of claim filed in the Bankruptcy Case, in part, because: (i) the amounts owed by the Walter Energy consolidated group for certain of the taxable periods from 1980 through 2006 remain unresolved; (ii) it is unclear whether Walter Energy will be obligated to pay any or all of such amounts owed; and (iii) in the event Walter Energy does not discharge all tax obligations for the consolidated group, it is unclear whether and to what extent the IRS will seek to enforce claims against us and any other member of the Walter Energy consolidated group. Walter Energy stated in the Walter November 2015 Filing that it believes its tax filing positions have substantial merit and it intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted by the IRS. We also intend to vigorously assert any and all available defenses against any liability we may have as a member of the Walter Energy consolidated group. However, we cannot currently estimate our liability, if any, relating to the tax-related liabilities of Walter Energy’s consolidated tax group for tax years prior to 2007, and such liability could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. In accordance with the income tax allocation agreement entered into in connection with our spin-off from Walter Energy, Walter Energy used certain tax assets of one of our predecessors in its calendar 2006 tax return for which payment to us is required. The income tax allocation agreement only requires Walter Energy to make the payment upon realization of this tax benefit by receiving a refund or otherwise offsetting taxes due. Walter Energy owes us $11.6 million that is payable pending completion of an IRS audit of Walter Energy’s 2006 tax year and the related refund of tax from that year. As a result of the Bankruptcy Case, we wrote off this receivable during the quarter ended September 30, 2015. Indemnifications . We are a party to contracts in which it is common for us to agree to indemnify third parties for certain liabilities that arise out of or relate to the subject matter of the contract. In some cases, this indemnity extends to related liabilities arising from the negligence of the indemnified parties, but usually excludes any liabilities caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct. We cannot estimate the potential amount of future payments under these indemnities until events arise that would trigger a liability under the indemnities. Additionally, in connection with the sale of assets and the divestiture of businesses, such as the divestiture of our former U.S. Pipe segment, we may agree to indemnify buyers and related parties for certain losses or liabilities incurred by these parties with respect to: (i) the representations and warranties made by us to these parties in connection with the sale and (ii) liabilities related to the pre-closing operations of the assets or business sold. Indemnities related to pre-closing operations generally include certain environmental, tax and other liabilities not assumed by these parties in the transaction. Indemnities related to the pre-closing operations of sold assets or businesses normally do not represent additional liabilities to us, but simply serve to protect these parties from potential liability associated with our obligations existing at the time of the sale. As with any liability, we have accrued for those pre-closing obligations that are considered probable and reasonably estimable. Should circumstances change, increasing the likelihood of payments related to a specific indemnity, we will accrue a liability when future payment is probable and the amount is reasonably estimable. Other Matters. Anvil is in a dispute with Victaulic Company (“Victaulic”) regarding two patents held by Victaulic, U.S. Patent 7,086,131 (“131 Patent”) and U.S. Patent 7,712,796 (“796 Patent” and collectively with the 131 Patent, “U.S. Patents”), which Anvil believes are invalid. The U.S. Patents potentially relate to a coupling product currently manufactured and marketed by Anvil. Anvil filed multiple reexamination requests with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) regarding the U.S. Patents, and the PTO granted the requests. Although the PTO examiner initially invalidated most of the claims of the 796 Patent, the PTO examiner affirmed the validity of the 796 Patent in September 2014. The PTO examiner’s decision with respect to the 796 Patent has been appealed by Anvil and awaits review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In April 2015, the PTO examiner invalidated the original claim of the 131 Patent but found patentable several claims added during reexamination that appear substantially similar to those included in the 796 Patent. However, on July 13, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision rejecting all claims of the 131 Patent as invalid. Relatedly, Anvil and Victaulic are engaged in lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and in the Federal Court of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The Georgia District Court litigation has been stayed pending the final outcome of the ongoing reexaminations of the U.S. Patents by the PTO. Although Anvil intends to continue to vigorously contest the validity of the U.S. Patents, as well as Victaulic’s related patents in Canada, and to defend itself against any counterclaims made by Victaulic, the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome with respect to these proceedings is unknown. Any number of potential outcomes is possible due to the multiple claims associated with the proceedings, each of which is in different stages and subject to appeal. Further, there are a number of highly complex factual and technical issues involved, and it is uncertain whether a favorable or unfavorable result with respect to a particular ruling or proceeding will impact the other matters in controversy. Accordingly, we have not recorded any accrual with respect to these proceedings and a range of liability is not reasonably estimable. We are party to a number of other lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business, including product liability cases for products manufactured by us or third parties. We provide for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount is reasonably estimable. Administrative costs related to these matters are expensed as incurred. The effect of the outcome of these matters on our future financial statements cannot be predicted with certainty as any such effect depends on the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. While the results of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the final outcome of such other litigation is not likely to have a materially adverse effect on our business or prospects. |
