Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters | 9 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2015 |
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters | (6) Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters |
|
The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to various claims which have arisen in the normal course of business. The Company provides for costs related to contingencies when a loss from such claims is probable and the amount is reasonably determinable. In determining whether it is possible to provide an estimate of loss, or range of possible loss, the Company reviews and evaluates its litigation and regulatory matters on a quarterly basis in light of potentially relevant factual and legal developments. If the Company determines an unfavorable outcome is not probable or reasonably estimable, the Company does not accrue for a potential litigation loss. While the Company has determined that there is a reasonable possibility that a loss has been incurred, no amounts have been recognized in the financial statements, other than what has been discussed below, because the amount of the liability cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. |
|
On October 29, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the United Kingdom (in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court) by United Phosphorous Limited (“UPL”) against Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corporation (“AACC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. In the lawsuit, UPL alleges, among other things, that AACC breached a 1995 agreement regarding European sales of a potato sprout suppression product, by selling the product in Europe. UPL claims damages of approximately £4,500 (approximately US $7,200) plus an unspecified amount of additional damages. AACC strongly denies the allegations and believes that UPL’s claims are without merit. However, in October 2014, in order to avoid the inherent risk of litigation, AACC and UPL reached an agreement pursuant to which (i) UPL will provide certain future business benefits and opportunities to AACC and the Company, and (ii) AACC would pay $350 to UPL, which occurred in December 2014. |
|
In fiscal years 2011, 2009, 2008 and 2007, the Company received letters from the Pulvair Site Group, a group of potentially responsible parties (PRP Group) who are working with the State of Tennessee (the State) to remediate a contaminated property in Tennessee called the Pulvair site. The PRP Group has alleged that Aceto shipped hazardous substances to the site which were released into the environment. The State had begun administrative proceedings against the members of the PRP Group and Aceto with respect to the cleanup of the Pulvair site and the PRP Group has begun to undertake cleanup. The PRP Group is seeking a settlement of approximately $1,700 from the Company for its share to remediate the site contamination. Although the Company acknowledges that it shipped materials to the site for formulation over twenty years ago, the Company believes that the evidence does not show that the hazardous materials sent by Aceto to the site have significantly contributed to the contamination of the environment and thus believes that, at most, it is a de minimis contributor to the site contamination. Accordingly, the Company believes that the settlement offer is unreasonable. Management believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or liquidity. |
|
The Company has environmental remediation obligations in connection with Arsynco, Inc. (“Arsynco”), a subsidiary formerly involved in manufacturing chemicals located in Carlstadt, New Jersey, which was closed in 1993 and is currently held for sale. Based on continued monitoring of the contamination at the site and the approved plan of remediation, the Company received an estimate from an environmental consultant stating that the costs of remediation could be between $12,200 and $14,000. Remediation commenced in fiscal 2010, and as of March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2014, a liability of $7,038 and $8,907, respectively, is included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets for this matter. In accordance with GAAP, management believes that the majority of costs incurred to remediate the site will be capitalized in preparing the property which is currently classified as held for sale. An appraisal of the fair value of the property by a third-party appraiser supports the assumption that the expected fair value after the remediation is in excess of the amount required to be capitalized. However, these matters, if resolved in a manner different from those assumed in current estimates, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, operating results and cash flows when resolved in a future reporting period. |
|
In connection with the environmental remediation obligation for Arsynco, in July 2009, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with BASF Corporation (“BASF”), the former owners of the Arsynco property. In accordance with the settlement agreement, BASF paid for a portion of the prior remediation costs and going forward, will co-remediate the property with the Company. The contract requires that BASF pay $550 related to past response costs and pay a proportionate share of the future remediation costs. Accordingly, the Company had recorded a gain of $550 in fiscal 2009. This $550 gain relates to the partial reimbursement of costs of approximately $1,200 that the Company had previously expensed. The Company also recorded an additional receivable from BASF, with an offset against property held for sale, representing its estimated portion of the future remediation costs. The balance of this receivable for future remediation costs as of March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2014 is $3,167 and $4,008, respectively, which is included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. |
|
In March 2006, Arsynco received notice from the EPA of its status as a PRP under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) for a site described as the Berry’s Creek Study Area (“BCSA”). Arsynco is one of over 150 PRPs which have potential liability for the required investigation and remediation of the site. The estimate of the potential liability is not quantifiable for a number of reasons, including the difficulty in determining the extent of contamination and the length of time remediation may require. In addition, any estimate of liability must also consider the number of other PRPs and their financial strength. In July 2014, Arsynco received notice from the U.S. Department of Interior (“USDOI”) regarding the USDOI’s intent to perform a Natural Resource Damage (NRD) Assessment at the BCSA. Arsynco has to date declined to participate in the development and performance of the NRD assessment process. Based on prior practice in similar situations, it is possible that the State may assert a claim for natural resource damages with respect to the Arsynco site itself, and either the federal government or the State (or both) may assert claims against Arsynco for natural resource damages in connection with Berry’s Creek; any such claim with respect to Berry’s Creek could also be asserted against the approximately 150 PRPs which the EPA has identified in connection with that site. Any claim for natural resource damages with respect to the Arsynco site itself may also be asserted against BASF, the former owners of the Arsynco property. In September 2012, Arsynco entered into an agreement with three of the other PRPs that had previously been impleaded into New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al. v. Occidental Chemical Corporation, et al., Docket No. ESX-L-9868-05 (the “NJDEP Litigation”) and were considering impleading Arsynco into same. Arsynco entered into agreement to avoid impleader. Pursuant to the agreement, Arsynco agreed to (1) a tolling period that would not be included when computing the running of any statute of limitations that might provide a defense to the NJDEP Litigation; (2) the waiver of certain issue preclusion defenses in the NJDEP Litigation; and (3) arbitration of certain potential future liability allocation claims if the other parties to the agreement are barred by a court of competent jurisdiction from proceeding against Arsynco. Since an amount of the liability cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, no accrual is recorded for these potential future costs. The impact of the resolution of this matter on the Company’s results of operations in a particular reporting period is not known. |
|
A subsidiary of the Company markets certain agricultural protection products which are subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”). FIFRA requires that test data be provided to the EPA to register, obtain and maintain approved labels for pesticide products. The EPA requires that follow-on registrants of these products compensate the initial registrant for the cost of producing the necessary test data on a basis prescribed in the FIFRA regulations. Follow-on registrants do not themselves generate or contract for the data. However, when FIFRA requirements mandate that new test data be generated to enable all registrants to continue marketing a pesticide product, often both the initial and follow-on registrants establish a task force to jointly undertake the testing effort. The Company is presently a member of several such task force groups, which requires payments for such memberships. In addition, in connection with our agricultural protection business, the Company plans to acquire product registrations and related data filed with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to support such registrations and other supporting data for several products. The acquisition of these product registrations and related data filed with the United States Environmental Protection Agency as well as payments to various task force groups could approximate $2,045 through fiscal 2015, of which $0 has been accrued as of March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2014. |
|
On December 31, 2010, the Company acquired certain assets of Rising Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Rising”), a New Jersey based company that markets and distributes generic prescription and over the counter pharmaceutical products to leading wholesalers, chain drug stores, distributors, mass market merchandisers and others under its own label, throughout the United States. The purchase agreement provided for the payment of additional contingent consideration equal to one-half of the three year cumulative Rising earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization in excess of $32,100, up to a maximum of $6,000. In December 2014 and March 2015, the Company made payments of $1,500 to the former owners of Rising. As of March 31, 2015 and June, 30, 2014, the Company had accrued $2,937 and $5,694, respectively, related to this contingent consideration. |
|
On April 30, 2014, Rising, a wholly owned subsidiary of Aceto, acquired 100% of the issued and outstanding membership interests of PACK. PACK, a national marketer and distributor of generic prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products, had headquarters in Buffalo Grove, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, Illinois. The purchase agreement provides for a three-year earn-out of up to $15,000 in cash based on the achievement of certain performance-based targets. As of March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2014, the Company accrued $4,133 and $3,797, respectively, related to this contingent consideration. Any necessary future adjustments to this amount will be recorded as an income statement charge at that time. |