Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

v3.10.0.1
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES.  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 10—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation and Claims

The Company is from time to time party to various lawsuits, claims and other proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. With respect to all such lawsuits, claims and proceedings, the Company records a reserve when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company does not believe that the resolution of any currently pending lawsuits, claims and proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. However, the outcomes of any currently pending lawsuits, claims and proceedings cannot be predicted, and therefore, there can be no assurance that this will be the case.

A putative shareholder class action, captioned Budde v. Global Power Equipment Group Inc., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas naming the Company and certain former officers as defendants. This action and another action were filed on May 13, 2015 and June 23, 2015, respectively, and on July 29, 2015 the court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint that names the Company and three of its former officers as defendants. It alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising out of matters related to the Company’s restatement of certain financial periods and claims that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in certain public disclosures during the putative class period in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5, as promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of persons who acquired the Company’s stock between September 7, 2011 and May 6, 2015, monetary damages of “more than $200 million” on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees. The Company intends to defend against this action. On June 26, 2017, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 23, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to that motion. On September 22, 2017, defendants filed their reply brief in further support of their motion to dismiss. On December 27, 2017, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting the motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiffs until January 15, 2018 to file an amended complaint. The court found that, with respect to each of the defendants, plaintiffs failed to plead facts supporting a strong inference of scienter, or the required intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud, or act with severe recklessness. On January 15, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, and in response the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion in opposition to the Company’s motion to dismiss, and requested oral argument. Defendants filed their reply brief in further support of their motion on March 23, 2018, and oral argument was held on July 19, 2018 and the court has not yet issued a ruling. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of this action is not predictable with assurance. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of this litigation, or any potential effect such may have on the Company or its business or operations.

A former operating unit of the Company has been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits. Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions. The bankruptcy court’s discharge order issued upon the Company’s emergence from bankruptcy in January 2008 extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had filed asbestos claims against it before that time. The Company believes the bankruptcy court’s discharge order should serve as a bar against any later claim filed against it, including any of its subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from asbestos at any time before emergence from bankruptcy. In any event, in all of the asbestos cases finalized post-bankruptcy, the Company has been successful in having such cases dismissed without liability. Moreover, during 2012, the Company secured insurance coverage that will help to reimburse the defense costs and potential indemnity obligations of its former operating unit relating to these claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend all currently active actions, all without liability, and it does not anticipate that any of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. However, the outcomes of any legal action cannot be predicted and, therefore, there can be no assurance that this will be the case.