COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Contingent Liabilities The Company records an accrual for contingent liabilities when a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. If some amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range, that amount is accrued. When no amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount, the lowest amount in the range is accrued. Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties In June 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“U.S. Customs”) sent us a Notice of Action that proposed to classify certain of our imports as subject to anti-dumping duties pursuant to a 2010 anti-dumping duty (“AD”) order on Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) from China. A companion countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on the same product is in effect as well. The Notice of Action covered one entry of certain raw material steel mechanical tubing made in China and imported into the U.S. from Canada by our DynaEnergetics segment during 2015 for use in manufacturing perforating guns. In July 2015, we sent a response to U.S. Customs outlining the reasons our mechanical tubing imports do not fall within the scope of the AD order on OCTG from China and should not be subject to anti-dumping duties. U.S. Customs proposed to take similar action with respect to other entries of this product and requested an approximately $1,100 cash deposit or bond for AD/CVD. In August 2015, we posted the bond of approximately $1,100 to U.S. Customs. Subsequently, U.S. Customs declined to conclude on the Company's assertion that the mechanical tubing the Company has been importing is not within the scope of the AD order on OCTG from China. As a result, on September 25, 2015 the Company filed a request for a scope ruling with the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce Department"). On February 15, 2016, the Company received the Commerce Department’s scope ruling, which determined certain imports, primarily used for gun carrier tubing, are included in the scope of the AD/CVD orders on OCTG from China and thus are subject to AD/CVD. On March 11, 2016, the Company filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) related to the Commerce Department’s scope ruling. On February 7, 2017, the CIT remanded the scope ruling to the Commerce Department to reconsider its determination. The Commerce Department filed its remand determination with the CIT on June 7, 2017 continuing to find that the Company's imports at issue are within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on OCTG from China. On March 16, 2018, the CIT issued its decision on the appeal and sustained the Commerce Department’s scope ruling. The Company does not intend to appeal this ruling. On December 27, 2016, we received notice from U.S. Customs that it may pursue penalties against us related to the AD/CVD issue and demanding tender of alleged loss of AD/CVD in an amount of $3,049 , which had previously been accrued for in our financial statements. We filed a response to the notice on February 6, 2017 asserting our position that any decision to pursue penalties would be premature in light of the Remand Order and that penalties would not be appropriate under the applicable legal standards. On February 16, 2017, we received notice that U.S. Customs was seeking penalties in the amount of $14,783 . U.S. Customs also reasserted its demand for tender of alleged loss of AD/CVD in the amount of $3,049 . We tendered $3,049 in AD amounts (“Tendered Amounts”) on March 6, 2017 into a suspense account pending ultimate resolution of the AD/CVD case. We submitted a petition for relief and mitigation of penalties on May 17, 2017 asserting our position that the amount of penalties asserted by U.S. Customs is unreasonable and subject to challenge on various grounds. On March 27, 2018, we received notice from U.S. Customs Headquarters that it intends to move forward with its pursuit of penalties. The Company has initiated discussions with U.S. Customs Headquarters regarding the scope of penalties asserted and will have the opportunity to further present the arguments set forth in its petition for relief and mitigation of penalties. Based on these arguments and mitigation factors, the Company believes that the probable ultimate penalty amount will range between $3,103 and $12,410 based on the AD/CVD of $6,205 that were recorded in the fourth quarter of 2015. As no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company accrued the minimum amount in the range, $3,103 . For the three months ended March 31, 2018 , the Company recorded $25 of interest on its reserve for AD/CVD and $3,103 of potential penalties, bringing the total reserved amount related to AD/CVD and penalties as of March 31, 2018 to $6,712 . The Tendered Amounts were applied to reduce the reserve, and we expect to pay the remainder of the AD/CVD when they are finally assessed by Customs. The Company will continue to incur legal costs and could also be subject to additional interest. Patent and Trademark Infringement On July 1, 2016, GEODynamics, Inc., a US-based oil and gas perforating equipment manufacturer based in Fort Worth, Texas ("GEODynamics") filed a patent infringement action against DynaEnergetics US, Inc. (“DynaEnergetics”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“District Court”) alleging infringement of US Patent No. 8,544,563 (the “563 patent”), also based on DynaEnergetics’ US sales of DPEX ® shaped charges. DynaEnergetics denies validity and infringement of the 563 patent and has vigorously defended itself against this lawsuit. As part of that defense, on September 20, 2016, DynaEnergetics filed an Inter Parties Review (IPR) against the 563 patent at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), requesting invalidation of the 563 patent. On March 17, 2017, DynaEnergetics' IPR request was instituted by the PTAB, and on March 1, 2018, PTAB issued its decision in favor of DynaEnergetics, invalidating all challenged claims of the 563 patent. Trial on the 563 patent remains stayed at this time, and DynaEnergetics plans to file for dismissal of the District Court case at the appropriate time. On April 28, 2017, GEODynamics filed a patent infringement action against DynaEnergetics in District Court alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,220,394 (the “394 patent”), based on DynaEnergetics' sales of its DPEX ® and HaloFrac ® shaped charges. DynaEnergetics denies validity and infringement of the 394 patent and plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. On August 28, 2017, DynaEnergetics filed an IPR against the 394 patent at the PTAB, requesting invalidation of the 394 patent. On March 8, 2018, PTAB issued its decision in which institution of the IPR review was denied. DynaEnergetics will proceed to trial, which is expected to occur in October 2018. On August 21, 2017, GEODynamics filed a patent infringement action against DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG and DynaEnergetics Beteiligungs GmbH, both wholly owned subsidiaries of DMC (collectively, “DynaEnergetics EU”), in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, Germany, alleging infringement of the German part DE 60 2004 033 297 of European patent EP 1 671 013 B1 granted on June 29, 2011, a patent related to the 394 patent (the “EP 013 patent”). This action is based on the manufacturing, sale and marketing of DPEX shaped charges in Germany. DynaEnergetics EU denies validity and infringement of the EP 013 patent and plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. DynaEnergetics EU filed its defense at the Regional Court of Düsseldorf and a nullity action against EP 013 at the German Federal Patent Court on February 14, 2018. A trial in the infringement proceedings is not yet scheduled but expected in the fourth quarter of 2018, and a trial in the nullity action is not expected before late 2019. On September 27, 2017, DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG filed a revocation action in the Patents Court, Shorter Trials Scheme in the UK against GEODynamics, asserting that the EP 013 patent, as maintained in the UK, is invalid. GEODynamics filed its defense and a counterclaim alleging infringement of the EP 013 patent in November 2017 based on sales and marketing of DPEX ® shaped charges in the UK. DynaEnergetics denies validity and infringement of the EP 013 patent and plans to vigorously challenge the EP 013 patent and defend against this lawsuit. Trial is currently expected to occur in October 2018. We do not believe that the 563 patent, the 394 patent, the EP 013 patent or infringement claims based on the patents are valid, and we do not believe it is probable that we will incur a material loss on the 563 matter, the 394 matter or the EP 013 matter. However, if it is determined that the patents are valid and that DynaEnergetics or DynaEnergetics EU, as applicable, has infringed them, it is reasonably possible that our financial statements could be materially affected. We are not able to provide a reasonable estimate of the range of loss, and we have not accrued for any such losses. Such an evaluation includes, among other things, a determination of the total number of infringing sales in the United States or infringing products manufactured in Germany, as applicable, what a reasonable royalty, if any, might be under the circumstances; or, alternatively, the scope of damages and the relevant period for which damages would apply, if any. |