| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Litigation – We are involved in various legal proceedings, claims, and government audits arising in the ordinary course of business. We record our best estimate of a loss when the loss is considered probable and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. When a loss is probable and there is a range of estimated loss with no best estimate within the range, we record the minimum estimated liability related to the lawsuit or claim. As additional information becomes available, we reassess the potential liability and revise our accruals, if necessary. Because of uncertainties related to the resolution of lawsuits and claims, the ultimate outcome may differ materially from our estimates. Other than the matters described below, there were no proceedings or litigation matters involving the Company or its property as of March 27, 2021 that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or cash flows, although they could have a material adverse effect on our operating results for a particular reporting period. Steves & Sons, Inc. vs JELD-WEN, Inc. – We sell molded door skins to certain customers pursuant to long-term contracts, and these customers in turn use the molded door skins to manufacture interior doors and compete directly against us in the marketplace. We gave notice of termination of one of these contracts and, on June 29, 2016, the counterparty to the agreement, Steves and Sons, Inc. (“Steves”) filed a claim against JWI in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division (the “Eastern District of Virginia”). The complaint alleged that our acquisition of CMI, a competitor in the molded door skins market, together with subsequent price increases and other alleged acts and omissions, violated antitrust laws, and constituted a breach of contract and breach of warranty. Specifically, the complaint alleged that our acquisition of CMI substantially lessened competition in the molded door skins market. The complaint sought declaratory relief, ordinary and treble damages, and injunctive relief, including divestiture of certain assets acquired in the CMI acquisition. In February 2018, a jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned a verdict that was unfavorable to JWI with respect to Steves’ claims that our acquisition of CMI violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and found that JWI breached the supply agreement between the parties (the “Original Action”). The verdict awarded Steves $12.2 million for past damages under both the Clayton Act and breach of contract claims and $46.5 million in future lost profits under the Clayton Act claim. During the course of the proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia, we discovered certain facts that led us to conclude that Steves, its principals, and certain former employees of the Company had misappropriated Company trade secrets, violated the terms of various agreements between the Company and those parties, and violated other laws. On May 11, 2018, a jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned a verdict on our trade secrets claims against Steves and awarded damages in the amount of $1.2 million. The presiding judge entered a judgment in our favor for those damages and the entire amount has been paid by Steves. On August 16, 2019, the presiding judge granted Steves’ request for an injunction, prohibiting us from pursuing certain claims against individual defendants pending in Bexar County, Texas (the “Steves Texas Trade Secret Theft Action”). These claims were stayed pending appeal. On March 13, 2019, the presiding judge entered an Amended Final Judgment Order in the Original Action, awarding $36.5 million in past damages under the Clayton Act (representing a trebling of the jury’s verdict) and granting divestiture of certain assets acquired in the CMI acquisition, subject to appeal. The judgment also conditionally awarded damages in the event the judgment was overturned on appeal. Specifically, the court awarded $139.4 million as future antitrust damages in the event the divestiture order was overturned on appeal and $9.9 million as past contract damages in the event both the divestiture and antitrust claims were overturned on appeal. On April 12, 2019, Steves filed a petition requesting an award of its fees and a bill of costs seeking $28.4 million in attorneys’ fees and $1.7 million in costs in connection with the Original Action. That petition remains pending and subject to further appeal. On November 19, 2019, the presiding judge entered an order for further relief awarding Steves an additional $7.1 million in damages for pricing differences from the date of the underlying jury verdict through May 31, 2019 (the “Pricing Action”). We also appealed that ruling. On April 14, 2020, Steves filed a motion for further supplemental relief for pricing differences from the date of the prior order and going forward through the end of the parties’ current supply agreement (the “Future Pricing Action”). We opposed that request for further relief. JELD-WEN filed a supersedeas bond and notice of appeal of the judgment, which was heard by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Fourth Circuit”) on May 29, 2020. On February 18, 2021, the Fourth Circuit issued its decision on appeal in the Original Action, affirming the Amended Final Judgment Order in part and vacating and remanding in part. The Fourth Circuit vacated the Eastern District of Virginia’s alternative $139.4 million lost-profits award, holding that award was premature because Steves has not suffered the purported injury on which its claim for future lost profits rests. The Fourth Circuit also vacated the Eastern District of Virginia’s judgment for Sam Steves, Edward Steves, and John Pierce on JELD-WEN’s trade secrets claims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Virginia’s finding of antitrust injury and its award of $36.5 million in past antitrust damages, which continues to accrue post-judgment interest. It also affirmed the Eastern District of Virginia’s divestiture order, while clarifying that JELD-WEN retains the right to challenge the terms of any divestiture, including whether a sale to any particular buyer will serve the public interest, and made clear that the Eastern District of Virginia may need to revisit its divestiture order if the special master cannot locate a satisfactory buyer. JELD-WEN then filed a motion for a rehearing en banc with the Fourth Circuit that was denied on March 22, 2021. The Eastern District of Virginia now has jurisdiction to begin working on the divestiture process, and a special master who has been appointed by the presiding judge will oversee this process. We continue to believe that Steves’ claims lack merit and Steves is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of divestiture of certain assets acquired in the CMI acquisition. We believe that multiple pretrial and trial rulings were erroneous and improperly limited the Company’s defenses and that the judgment in accordance with the verdict was improper for several reasons under applicable law, and we intend to explore all options, including all further appellate remedies available to us. It is not possible to estimate the impact of any final divestiture order if ultimately upheld, or whether such an order would have a material adverse effect on our financial position, operating results, or cash flows. During the pendency of the Original Action, on February 14, 2020, Steves filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that we breached the long-term supply agreement between the parties, among other claims, including by incorrectly calculating the allocation of door skins owed to Steves (the “Allocation Action”). Steves sought an additional allotment of door skins and damages for violation of antitrust laws, tortious interference, and breach of contract. On April 10, 2020, the presiding judge granted Steves’ motion for preliminary injunction, and the parties settled the issues underlying the preliminary injunction on April 30, 2020 and reserved the right to appeal the ruling in the Fourth Circuit. The Company believed all the claims lacked merit and moved to dismiss the antitrust and tortious interference claims. On June 2, 2020, we entered into a settlement agreement with Steves to resolve the Pricing Action, the Future Pricing Action, and the Allocation Action. As a result of the settlement, Steves filed a notice of satisfaction of judgment in the Pricing Action, withdrew its Future Pricing Action with prejudice, and filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice in the Allocation Action. The Company also withdrew its appeal of the Pricing Action. The parties agreed to bear their own respective attorneys’ fees and costs in these actions. In partial consideration of the settlement, JWI and Steves entered into an amended supply agreement satisfactory to both parties that ends on September 10, 2021. This settlement had no effect on the Original Action between the parties except to agree that certain specific terms of the Amended Final Judgment Order in the Original Action will apply to the amended supply agreement during the pendency of the appeal of the Original Action. Under the Amended Final Judgment Order, if the Original Action remains on appeal as of September 10, 2021, the Company’s supply agreement with Steves will be extended for one year beyond the conclusion of the appeal. The settlement also does not have any effect on the Steves Texas Trade Secret Theft Action, which remains on appeal in the Fourth Circuit with briefing to begin in May 2021. We continue to believe the claims in the settled actions lacked merit and made no admission of liability in these matters. Cambridge Retirement System v. JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., et al. – On February 19, 2020, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, current and former Company executives, and various Onex-related entities alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants and Onex-related entities (“Cambridge”). The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 8, 2020, the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund were named as co-lead plaintiffs and filed an amended complaint on June 22, 2020. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 29, 2020, which was denied on October 26, 2020. On January 19, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which we opposed on February 2, 2021. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on March 29, 2021. On April 12, 2021, we filed a petition to seek the Fourth Circuit’s permission to appeal this class certification opinion. On April 20, 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve this securities class action. The agreement contemplates a full release of claims through the date of preliminary court approval of the settlement in exchange for a payment of $39.5 million funded by the Company’s D&O carriers. On April 21, 2021, the parties jointly informed the court of their agreement, and the court stayed all deadlines in the case. The deadline for the parties’ stipulation of dismissal of the action and the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement is set for June 4, 2021. As part of the settlement agreement, on April 22, 2021, we withdrew our petition to the Fourth Circuit for its permission to appeal the district court’s class certification opinion. The Company continues to believe that the plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and has denied any liability or wrongdoing for the claims made against the Company. The settlement agreement remains subject to court approval and other conditions. On February 2, 2021, Jason Aldridge, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against certain current and former executives and directors of the Company, alleging that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the wrongful acts alleged in the Steves and Cambridge actions, as well as violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets (“Aldridge”). The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties sought a stay of the Aldridge action. On April 19, 2021, the court denied the parties’ motion to stay and, instead, ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complied with court rules or the matter would be dismissed. The Company believes the claims in Aldridge lacks merit and intends to vigorously defend against the action. In re Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Litigation – On October 19, 2018, Grubb Lumber Company, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit against us and one of our competitors in the doors market, Masonite Corporation (“Masonite”), in the Eastern District of Virginia. We subsequently received additional complaints from and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of interior molded doors. The suits were consolidated into two separate actions, a Direct Purchaser Action and an Indirect Purchaser Action. The suits allege that Masonite and JELD-WEN violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and in the Indirect Purchaser Action, related state law antitrust and consumer protection laws, by engaging in a scheme to artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the prices of interior molded doors in the United States. The complaints sought ordinary and treble damages, declaratory relief, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes the claims lack merit and vigorously defended against the actions. On September 18, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss the lawsuits, dismissing various state law claims and limiting plaintiffs’ damages claims to a four-year period (from 2014-2018) under the applicable statute of limitations. Together with Masonite, we filed motions to oppose class certification in both the Direct Purchaser and Indirect Purchaser Actions on May 19, 2020. On August 31, 2020, JELD-WEN and Masonite entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the Direct Purchaser Action. In exchange for a full release of claims through the date of preliminary court approval of the settlement, each defendant originally agreed to pay $28.0 million to the named plaintiffs and the settlement class. On January 27, 2021, the parties to the Direct Purchaser Action revised the settlement agreement to modify certain terms, and each defendant agreed to pay a total of $30.8 million to the named plaintiffs and the settlement class in exchange for a full release of claims through the date of preliminary approval of the revised settlement, which the court granted on February 5, 2021. In addition, on September 4, 2020, JELD-WEN and Masonite entered into a separate settlement agreement to resolve the Indirect Purchaser Action. Each defendant agreed to pay $9.75 million to the named plaintiffs and the settlement class in exchange for a full release of claims through the execution date of the settlement agreement, and the court has granted preliminary approval of this settlement in the Indirect Purchaser Action. The Company continues to believe that the plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and has denied any liability or wrongdoing for the claims made against the Company. The settlement agreements remain subject to final court approval and other conditions. The final fairness hearing in the Direct Purchaser Action is scheduled to be in June 2021, and the final fairness hearing in the Indirect Purchaser Action is scheduled to be in July 2021. Canadian Antitrust Litigation – On May 15, 2020, Développement Émeraude Inc., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit against us and Masonite in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Canada, which was served on us on September 18, 2020 (“the Quebec Action”). The putative class consists of any person in Canada who, since October 2012, purchased one or more interior molded doors from us or Masonite. The suit alleges an illegal conspiracy between us and Masonite to agree on prices, the distribution of market shares and/or the production levels of interior molded doors and that the plaintiffs suffered damages in that they were charged and paid higher prices for interior molded doors than they would have had to pay but for the alleged anti-competitive conduct. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 9, 2020, Kate O’Leary Swinkels, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action against JELD-WEN and Masonite in federal court in the province of Ontario, which was served on us on September 29, 2020 (the “Ontario Action”). The Ontario Action makes substantially similar allegations to the Quebec Action and the putative class is represented by the same counsel. In February 2021, the plaintiff in the Ontario Action noticed a proposed Amended Statement of Claim that replaced the named plaintiff, Kate O’Leary Swinkels, with David Regan. The plaintiff further anticipates staying the Quebec Action while the Ontario Action proceeds, although we do not anticipate a hearing on the certification of the Ontario Action until the middle of 2022. The Company believes both the Quebec Action and the Ontario Action lack merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. We have evaluated the claims against us and recorded provisions based on management’s judgment about the probable outcome of the litigation and have included our estimates in accrued expenses in the accompanying balance sheets. See Note 7 - Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities . While we expect a favorable resolution to these matters, the dispute resolution process could be lengthy, and if the plaintiffs were to prevail completely or substantially in the respective matters described above, such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, consolidated financial position, or cash flows. Self-Insured Risk – We self-insure substantially all of our domestic business liability risks including general liability, product liability, warranty, personal injury, auto liability, workers’ compensation and employee medical benefits. Excess insurance policies from independent insurance companies generally cover exposures between $3.0 million and $200.0 million for domestic product liability risk and exposures between $0.5 million and $200.0 million for auto, general liability, personal injury and workers’ compensation. We have no stop loss insurance covering our self-insured employee medical plan and are responsible for all claims thereunder. We estimate our provision for self-insured losses based upon an evaluation of current claim exposure and historical loss experience. Actual self-insurance losses may vary significantly from these estimates. At March 27, 2021 and December 31, 2020, our accrued liability for self-insured risks was $82.6 million and $81.0 million, respectively. Indemnifications – At March 27, 2021, we had commitments related to certain representations made in contracts for the purchase or sale of businesses or property. These representations primarily relate to past actions such as responsibility for transfer taxes if they should be claimed, and the adequacy of recorded liabilities, warranty matters, employment benefit plans, income tax matters, or environmental exposures. These guarantees or indemnification responsibilities typically expire within one identified related to product sales, liabilities have been provided in the warranty accrual in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Other Financing Arrangements – At times we are required to provide letters of credit, surety bonds, or guarantees to meet various performance, legal, warranty, environmental, workers compensation, licensing, utility, and governmental requirements. Stand-by letters of credit are provided to certain customers and counterparties in the ordinary course of business as credit support for contractual performance guarantees, advanced payments received from customers, and future funding commitments. The stated values of these letters of credit agreements, surety bonds, and guarantees were $121.4 million and $122.7 million at March 27, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively. Environmental Contingencies – We periodically incur environmental liabilities associated with remediating our current and former manufacturing sites as well as penalties for not complying with environmental rules and regulations. We record a liability for remediation costs when it is probable that we will be responsible for such costs and the costs can be reasonably estimated. These environmental liabilities are estimated based on current available facts and current laws and regulations. Accordingly, it is likely that adjustments to the estimated liabilities will be necessary as additional information becomes available. Short-term environmental liabilities and settlements are recorded in accrued expenses in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and totaled $0.6 million at March 27, 2021 and $0.7 million at December 31, 2020. Long-term environmental liabilities are recorded in deferred credits and other liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and totaled $8.3 million at March 27, 2021 and December 31, 2020. Everett, Washington WADOE Action –In 2008, we entered into an Agreed Order with the WADOE to assess historic environmental contamination and remediation feasibility at our former manufacturing site in Everett, Washington. As part of this agreement, we also agreed to develop a Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”), arising from the feasibility assessment, and in December 2020, we submitted to the WADOE a draft feasibility assessment which we considered substantially complete containing remedial alternatives ranging from $8.3 million to $57.0 million. In January 2021, we provided the WADOE with a revised draft of our feasibility assessment and received comments from the WADOE in February 2021. In April 2021, we responded to the WADOE’s comments and submitted our revised draft of our feasibility assessment to the WADOE. We expect any comments on the revised draft within sixty days. The WADOE informed us of their plan for public comments on this matter, and we now expect to deliver a draft CAP to the WADOE in August 2021. The final feasibility assessment and draft final of the CAP are expected to be delivered to the WADOE in October 2021. At that time, the WADOE will release the documents to the public for a 30-day comment period. Once the public comment period has expired and any comments incorporated, the WADOE will select the remedial actions we will be required to perform, and a final CAP will be developed and delivered to the WADOE 15 days thereafter. While we have made provisions in our financial statements within the range of possible outcomes for this matter, it is unclear at this time which remedial actions we will be required to undertake or the cost thereof. As a result, the cost of the final CAP could vary materially from our provisions and have a material impact on our statement of operations and statement of cash flows. Towanda, Pennsylvania Consent Order – In December 2020, we entered into a COA with the PaDEP to remove a pile of wood fiber waste from our site in Towanda, Pennsylvania, which we acquired in connection with our acquisition of CMI in 2013, by using it as fuel for a boiler at that site. The COA replaced a 2018 Consent Decree between PaDEP and us. Under the COA, we are required to achieve certain periodic removal objectives and ultimately remove the entire pile by August 31, 2025. There are currently $2.3 million in bonds posted in connection with these obligations. If we are unable to remove this pile by August 31, 2025, then the bonds will be forfeited, and we may be subject to penalties by PaDEP. We currently anticipate meeting all applicable removal deadlines; however, if our operations at this site decrease and we burn less fuel than currently anticipated, we may not be able to meet such deadlines. |
