Commitments and contingencies | Commitments and contingencies Legal matters The Company is involved in legal proceedings and litigation in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. Other than routine litigation incidental to the Company's business and those matters described below, there are no material legal proceedings to which the Company is a party or to which any of the Company’s properties are subject. Earnout Dispute On March 13, 2015, through an indirect wholly owned subsidiary, Lone Star Fund IX (U.S.), L.P. (which is referred to, along with its affiliates and associates, but excluding Forterra and other companies that it owns as a result of its investment activity, as "Lone Star") acquired the building products business of HeidelbergCement AG, ("HC"), in the United States and Eastern Canada, (the "Acquisition"). The Acquisition purchase agreement included an earnout, which provided for the payment of contingent consideration of up to $100.0 million , if and to the extent the 2015 financial results of the businesses acquired by Lone Star in the Acquisition, including the Company and HC's former building products business in the United Kingdom, exceeded a specified Adjusted EBITDA target for fiscal year 2015, as calculated pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement. If such Adjusted EBITDA calculation exceeded the specified target, LSF9 Concrete Holdings Ltd. ("LSF9") and, as a result of the internal reorganization transaction effected prior to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"), the Company would be required to pay the U.S. affiliate of HC an amount equal to a multiple of such excess Adjusted EBITDA, with any payment capped at $100.0 million . In April 2016, the Company provided an earnout statement to affiliates of HC demonstrating that no payment was required. On June 13, 2016, HC provided notification that it disputed, among other things, the Company’s calculation of Adjusted EBITDA under the purchase agreement and asserting that a payment should be made in the amount of $100.0 million . The Company does not believe HC’s position has merit and is vigorously opposing HC's assertions. On October 5, 2016, affiliates of HC filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking specific performance and claiming access to the Company's books, records, and personnel; seeking a declaratory judgment concerning the scope of the neutral accounting expert’s authority; and in the alternative, claiming a breach of contract and seeking the $100.0 million and other damages (the "Delaware Action"). On December 8, 2017, the court granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the Delaware Action, finding that the earnout dispute should be heard before a neutral accounting arbitrator as set forth in the purchase agreement and that any claims that were required to be brought as indemnification claims under the purchase agreement were time-barred by the contractual limitations period. Following the dismissal of the Delaware Action, the Company and HC jointly engaged a neutral accounting expert to act as an arbitrator in the dispute as required by the purchase agreement. After briefing certain preliminary matters for the arbitrator and the production of additional documents, the parties began briefing the issues on the merits for the neutral accounting arbitrator, which was completed in April 2020. The arbitrator will have an opportunity to ask written questions of both parties, and a final hearing on the dispute is currently scheduled to be held on June 23 and 24, 2020, subject to any potential delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with a written decision from the neutral accounting arbitrator expected within 60 days thereafter. As of March 31, 2020 , no liability for this contingency has been accrued as payment of any earnout is not considered probable. However, the outcome of this matter is uncertain, and no assurance can be given to the ultimate outcome of the resulting proceedings. If the Company is unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, it could recognize a material charge to its earnings. Securities Action and Derivative Actions Beginning on August 14, 2017, four plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against various defendants. On July 27, 2018, an order was entered consolidating the lawsuits into a single action (the "Securities Action") and transferring the venue of the case from the Eastern District of New York to the Northern District of Texas. Pursuant to an agreed scheduling order, plaintiffs in the Securities Action filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint on November 30, 2018. The Securities Action is brought by two plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the IPO and is brought against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, Lone Star and certain of its affiliates, and certain banks that acted as underwriters of the IPO (collectively, the “Securities Defendants”). The Securities Action generally alleges that the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with the IPO (the "Registration Statement") contained false or misleading statements and/or omissions of material facts. Specifically, plaintiffs allege the Registration Statement (1) made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's ability to generate organic growth through cross-selling initiatives amongst the Company's various businesses while failing to disclose that the Company had not adequately integrated acquisitions, had not begun rolling out its cross-selling initiative, and that its businesses were submitting competing bids against one another, and (2) made false or misleading statements regarding the existence of certain accounting practices and alleged material weaknesses in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, including the existence of and accounting for bill and hold transactions, the lack of sufficient accounting personnel, the lack of effective internal controls to ensure costs were properly and accurately accrued, resulting in misstated costs and profits in the Company's 2016 financial statements, and the making of inventory accounting entries without adequate substantiation or documentation. The Securities Action asserts claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") and seeks (1) class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) damages suffered by plaintiffs and other class members, (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, (4) reasonable counsel fees and expert fees, and other costs and expenses reasonably incurred, and (5) other relief the court deems appropriate. On February 15, 2019, the Securities Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims in the case based on plaintiffs' failure to state a claim. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on May 1, 2019, and the court has not yet ruled on the motion. A mediation of the Securities Action occurred in August 2019. On November 4, 2019, the parties to the Securities Action entered into a settlement agreement that is intended to fully and finally resolve all claims in the Securities Action. On January 4, 2020, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval for the settlement and providing for notice. Approval of the settlement in the Securities Action is set for final hearing on July 21, 2020, but approval cannot be guaranteed. The terms of the settlement are expected to be paid by the Company's insurance. On July 31, 2018, a putative shareholder derivative complaint captioned Maloney v. Bradley, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging that certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers had breached their fiduciary duties, committed constructive fraud, wasted corporate assets, and that certain of them had been unjustly enriched (the "Maloney Texas Action"). On July 30, 2019, the court in the Maloney Texas Action granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds that the case should have been brought in Delaware according to the Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation. On September 23, 2019, the same plaintiff filed a putative shareholder derivative complaint captioned Maloney v. Bradley, et al. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, naming as defendants certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers (the "Maloney Delaware Action"). The complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 14A and 20(A) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, breached their fiduciary duties, and wasted corporate assets, and also asserts unjust enrichment claims against certain defendants. The complaint seeks, on behalf of the Company, unspecified damages, an order directing the return of certain payments to the defendants and imposing a constructive trust thereon, certain injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and punitive damages. On January 15, 2019, a putative shareholder derivative complaint captioned Lee v. Bradley, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, naming as defendants certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers (the "Lee Action"). The complaint alleges the defendants violated Section 14A of the Securities and Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and related rules by failing to make certain disclosures in the Company's proxy solicitation in advance of the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, and that defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets, and committed constructive fraud. The complaint also asserts unjust enrichment claims against certain defendants. The complaint seeks, on behalf of the Company, unspecified damages, an order directing the return of certain payments to the defendants, certain injunctive relief, and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. On April 18, 2019, the court entered an agreed stipulation staying the Lee Action until the court in the Securities Action rules on the motion to dismiss in that case. On December 11, 2019, the court in the Lee Action entered a Stipulation and Order consolidating the Lee Action and the Maloney Delaware Action into a single case (the "Consolidated Lee Action"), and providing a schedule for filing of an amended complaint and motions to dismiss, which has been further extended by agreement of the parties given the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company and other defendants are vigorously defending the Consolidated Lee Action. Given the stage of the proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from the Consolidated Lee Action. Long-term Incentive Plan Following the Acquisition, Lone Star implemented a cash-based long term incentive plan (the “LTIP”) which entitles the participants in the LTIP to a potential cash payout upon a monetization event as defined by the LTIP. Potential monetization events include the sale, transfer or otherwise disposition of all or a portion of the Company or successor entities of LSF9, an initial public offering where Lone Star reduces its ownership interest in the Company or successor entities of LSF9, or through certain cash distribution as defined in the LTIP. Before the payout of any cash the LTIP requires Lone Star realize in cash the full return of their investment plus a specified internal rate of return, which is calculated by comparing the return to Lone Star over the timeline of its investment in the Company and certain successor entities of LSF9. As of March 31, 2020 , no such monetization events that meet the required return for an LTIP payment have occurred, and therefore no amounts were accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. While no payments have occurred thus far, payments under the LTIP could be significant depending upon future monetization events. The timing and amount of such payments are unknown and are dependent upon future monetization events and market conditions that are outside of the control of the Company or the participants of the plan. Subsequent to the IPO, Forterra became directly liable for any payment obligations triggered under the LTIP, but LSF9 or one of its affiliates will remain obligated to make payments to the Company in amounts equal to any payment obligations triggered under the LTIP as and when such payment obligations are triggered. Leases The Company leases certain property and equipment for various periods under non-cancelable operating and finance leases. Tax receivable agreement The Company has a tax receivable agreement (the "TRA") with Lone Star that provides for, among other things, the payment by the Company to Lone Star of 85% of the amount of certain covered tax benefits, which may reduce the actual liability for certain taxes that the Company might otherwise be required to pay. The tax benefits subject to the TRA include: (i) all depreciation and amortization deductions, and any offset to taxable income and gain or increase to taxable loss, resulting from the tax basis that the Company had in its assets as of the time of the consummation of the IPO, (ii) the utilization of the Company's and its subsidiaries’ net operating losses and tax credits, if any, attributable to periods prior to the IPO, (iii) deductions in respect of payments made, funded or reimbursed by an initial party to the tax receivable agreement (other than the Company or one of its subsidiaries) or an affiliate thereof to participants under the LTIP, (iv) deductions in respect of transaction expenses attributable to the acquisition of USP Holdings, Inc. and (v) certain other tax benefits attributable to payments made under the tax receivable agreement. For purposes of the TRA, the aggregate reduction in income tax payable by the Company will be computed by comparing the Company's actual income tax liability with its hypothetical liability had it not been able to utilize the related tax benefits. The agreement will remain in effect for the period of time in which any such related tax benefits remain. The Company accounts for potential payments under the TRA as a contingent liability, with amounts accrued when considered probable and reasonably estimable. The liability recorded by the Company for the TRA at March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019 was $77.4 million and $77.4 million , respectively. The timing and amount of future tax benefits associated with the TRA are subject to change, and additional payments may be required which could be materially different from the current accrued liability. The Company anticipates that it will have sufficient taxable income in future periods to realize the full value of the obligation recorded. Future tax receivable agreement payments related to the tax basis of assets at the time of the IPO will be recorded as a reduction to the liability and will be recorded as a financing activity in the consolidated statement of cash flows. During the three months ended March 31, 2020 , no payments were made on the TRA to Lone Star. |