COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating leases

At December 31, 2016, the Company was obligated under lease agreements for the rental of certain real estate and machinery and equipment used in its operations.  Future minimum rental obligations for non-cancellable lease payments total approximately $120.9 million at December 31, 2016.  The lease obligations, partially offset by sublease income, are payable as follows: 
 
 
Lease
 
Sublease
(Amounts in thousands)
 
Commitments
 
Income
2017
 
$
28,887

 
$
396

2018
 
22,314

 
404

2019
 
18,528

 
412

2020
 
14,310

 
420

2021
 
11,580

 
428

Thereafter
 
25,255

 
1,337


 
Total rental expense for all operating leases was approximately $37.3 million, $37.6 million, and $34.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively.

Indemnifications

In connection with the Ply Gem acquisition, in which Ply Gem Industries was acquired from Nortek in February 2004, Nortek has agreed to indemnify the Company for certain liabilities as set forth in the stock purchase agreement governing the Ply Gem acquisition.  In the event Nortek is unable to satisfy amounts due under these indemnifications, the Company would be liable.  The Company believes that Nortek has the financial capacity to honor its indemnification obligations and therefore does not anticipate incurring any losses related to liabilities indemnified by Nortek under the stock purchase agreement.  A receivable related to this indemnification has been recorded in other long-term assets in the approximate amount of $1.4 million and $1.8 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.  As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company has recorded liabilities related to these indemnifications of approximately $0.5 million and $0.5 million, respectively, in current liabilities and $0.9 million and $1.3 million, respectively, in long-term liabilities, consisting of the following:
(Amounts in thousands)
 
December 31, 2016
 
December 31, 2015
Product claim liabilities
 
$
138

 
$
138

Multiemployer pension plan withdrawal liability
 
808

 
960

Other
 
500

 
664

 
 
$
1,446

 
$
1,762



The product claim liabilities of approximately $0.1 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, recorded in long term liabilities, represent the estimated costs to resolve the outstanding matters related to a former subsidiary of the Company, which is a defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging damage caused by alleged defects in certain pressure treated wood products.  The Company had indemnified the buyer of the former subsidiary for all known liabilities and future claims relating to such matters and retained the rights to all potential reimbursements related to insurance coverage.  Many of the suits have been resolved by dismissal or settlement with amounts being paid out of insurance proceeds or other third party recoveries.  The Company and the former subsidiary continue to vigorously defend the remaining suits.  Certain defense and indemnity costs are being paid out of insurance proceeds and proceeds from a settlement with suppliers of material used in the production of the treated wood products.  The Company and the former subsidiary have engaged in coverage litigation with certain insurers and have settled coverage claims with several of the insurers.

The multiemployer pension plan withdrawal liability of approximately $0.8 million and $1.0 million recorded in long term liabilities at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, relate to liabilities assumed by the Company in 1998 when its former subsidiary, Studley Products, Inc. (“Studley”) was sold.  In connection with the sale, Studley ceased making contributions to the Production Service and Sales District Council Pension Fund (the “Pension Fund”), and the Company assumed responsibility for all withdrawal liabilities to be assessed by the Pension Fund.  Accordingly, the Company is making quarterly payments of approximately $0.1 million to the Pension Fund through 2018 based upon the assessment of withdrawal liability received from the Pension Fund.  The multiemployer pension liability represents the present value of the quarterly payment stream as well as an estimate of additional amounts that may be assessed in the future by the Pension Fund under the contractual provisions of the Pension Fund.
    
Included in the indemnified items is approximately $0.5 million and $0.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, of accrued expenses to cover the estimated costs and expenses of defending known litigation claims, including the estimated cost of legal services incurred, that the Company is contesting.

Warranty claims

The Company sells a number of products and offers a number of warranties.  The specific terms and conditions of these warranties vary depending on the product sold.  The Company estimates the costs that may be incurred under warranties and records a liability for such costs at the time of sale.  Factors that affect the Company’s warranty liabilities include the number of units sold, historical and anticipated rates of warranty claims, cost per claim and new product introduction.  The Company assesses the adequacy of the recorded warranty claims and adjusts the amounts as appropriate.  As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, warranty liabilities of approximately $19.7 million and $16.6 million, respectively, have been recorded in current liabilities and approximately $57.6 million and $59.9 million, respectively, have been recorded in long term liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. The increase in the warranty liabilities during 2014 relates to the Simonton acquisition which was completed in September 2014.

Changes in the Company’s short-term and long-term warranty liabilities are as follows:
 
 
For the year ended December 31,
(Amounts in thousands)
 
2016
 
2015
 
2014
Balance, beginning of period
 
$
76,562

 
$
84,423

 
$
42,466

Acquisitions-Canyon Stone (2015) and Simonton (2014)
 
—

 
100

 
48,235

Warranty expense during period
 
22,266

 
21,264

 
15,177

Adjustments
 
—

 
(7,761
)
 
(3,021
)
Settlements made during period
 
(21,549
)
 
(21,464
)
 
(18,434
)
Balance, end of period
 
$
77,279

 
$
76,562

 
$
84,423



Environmental

The Company is subject to United States and Canadian federal, state, provincial and local laws and regulations relating to pollution and the protection of the environment, including those governing emissions to air, discharges to water, use, storage and transport of hazardous materials, storage, treatment and disposal of waste, remediation of contaminated sites, and protection of worker health and safety. From time to time, the Company's facilities are subject to investigation by governmental regulators. In addition, the Company has been identified as one of many potentially responsible parties for contamination present at certain offsite locations to which it or its predecessors are alleged to have sent hazardous materials for recycling or disposal. The Company may be held liable, or incur fines or penalties, in connection with such requirements or liabilities for, among other things, releases of hazardous substances occurring on or emanating from current or formerly owned or operated properties or any associated offsite disposal location, or for known or newly-discovered contamination at any of the Company's properties from activities conducted by us or previous occupants. The amount of any liability, fine or penalty may be material, and certain environmental laws impose strict, and under certain circumstances joint and several, liability for the cost of addressing releases of hazardous substances upon certain classes of persons, including site owners or operators and persons that disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances at contaminated sites.

MW Manufacturers Inc. (“MW”) entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (the “Consent Order”), effective September 12, 2011, with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region III, under Section 3008(h) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), with respect to its Rocky Mount, Virginia property.  During 2011, as part of the Consent Order, MW provided the EPA, among other things, a RCRA Facility Investigation Workplan (the “Workplan”) as well as a preliminary cost estimate of approximately $1.8 million for the predicted assessment, remediation and monitoring activities to be conducted pursuant to the Consent Order over the remediation period, which is currently estimated through 2023. During 2012, the EPA approved the Workplan, and MW is currently implementing the Workplan. The Company has recorded approximately $0.3 million of this environmental liability within current liabilities and approximately $1.1 million and $1.2 million within other long-term liabilities in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.  The Company will adjust this environmental remediation liability in future periods, if necessary, as further information develops or circumstances change.

Certain liabilities with respect to this contamination relate to the previous closure of an underground storage tank and were assumed by U.S. Industries, Inc., pursuant to its indemnity obligation under the stock purchase agreement dated August 11, 1995, whereby U.S. Industries, Inc. sold the stock of MW to FPI Acquisition Corp. (“Fenway Partners”). As the successor-in-interest of Fenway Partners, the Company is similarly indemnified by U.S. Industries, Inc. Notwithstanding this indemnity, however, under applicable Federal and State laws, MW, and the Company as its parent, could be held liable for all or part of the costs associated with the matter under certain circumstances. Moreover, the Company’s ability to seek indemnification from U.S. Industries, Inc. is limited by the terms and limits of the indemnity as well as the strength of U.S. Industries, Inc.’s financial condition, which could change in the future.  As of December 31, 2016, no recovery has been recognized on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet, but the Company will actively pursue this indemnity in future periods and will recognize future recoveries in the period in which they become probable.

The State of Nebraska is investigating certain groundwater contamination in northern York, Nebraska, comprised primarily of volatile organic compounds (VOC) (predominantly trichloroethene (TCE)). In December 2013, the EPA announced its proposal to add this groundwater contamination site to the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) after it was referred to the EPA by the State of Nebraska. Sampling was conducted at the Kroy Building Products, Inc. (“Kroy”) facility in York, Nebraska during the first quarter of 2010. In February 2015, the EPA sent a request for information pursuant to Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and Kroy has responded to this request for information. Given the preliminary stage of this matter, the Company has not recorded a liability for this matter in its consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. Alcan Aluminum Corporation (“Alcan”) has assumed the obligation to indemnify the Company with respect to certain liabilities for environmental contamination of the Kroy facility occurring prior to 1994. Notwithstanding this indemnity, however, under applicable Federal and State laws, Kroy, and the Company as its parent, could be held liable for all or part of the costs associated with the matter under certain circumstances. Moreover, the ability of Kroy and the Company to seek indemnification may be limited by the terms and limits of the indemnity as well as the strength of Alcan’s financial condition, which could change in the future.

The Company is currently involved in environmental proceedings involving Gienow Canada Inc. (f/k/a Ply Gem Canada, Inc.) and Alberta Environment (arising from subsurface contamination discovered at our Calgary, Alberta property) for which the Company has a $0.1 million liability included in its consolidated balance sheet, and the Company may in the future be subject to environmental proceedings involving Thermal-Gard, Inc. (arising from groundwater contamination in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania), Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. (“MHE”) (relating to a closed landfill site in Sidney, Ohio as well as participating as a potentially responsible party in nine contaminated sites in Indiana, Ohio and South Carolina), and Simonton (relating to closed lagoons and certain contamination in Paris, Illinois as well as certain contamination associated with certain 7-Eleven convenience food stores). Under the stock purchase agreement governing the MHE acquisition, Alcoa Securities Corporation and Alcoa, Inc. are to indemnify the Company for certain environmental liabilities in excess of $2.5 million, including liabilities relating to the landfill site in Sidney, Ohio and the nine contaminated sites in Indiana, Ohio and South Carolina. Under the stock purchase agreement governing the Simonton acquisition, Fortune Brands Windows & Doors, Inc., is to indemnify the Company for any environmental claims associated with the 7-Eleven convenience food stores. The Company's ability to seek indemnification or enforce these and other obligations is, however, limited by the strength of the financial condition of the indemnitor or responsible party, which could change in the future, as well as the terms and limits of any such indemnities or obligations.

Based on current information, the Company is not aware of any compliance obligations, claims, releases or investigations that will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position except as otherwise disclosed in the Company's consolidated financial statements. However, there can be no guarantee that previously known or newly-discovered matters or any inability to enforce our available indemnification rights against previous owners of the Company, its subsidiaries, or their businesses or properties will not result in material costs or liabilities. While the purchase agreements governing certain of our acquisitions provide that the sellers will indemnify us, subject to certain limitations, for certain environmental liabilities, our ability to seek indemnification from the respective sellers is limited by various factors, including the financial condition of the indemnitor or responsible party as well as by the terms and limits of such indemnities or obligations. As a result, there can be no assurance that we could receive any indemnification from the sellers, and any related environmental liabilities, costs or penalties could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Self-insured risks

The Company maintains a broad range of insurance policies which include general liability insurance coverage and workers compensation. These insurance policies protect the Company against a portion of the risk of loss from claims. However, the Company retains a portion of the overall risk for such claims through its self-insured per occurrence and aggregate retentions, deductibles, and claims in excess of available insurance policy limits. The Company's general liability insurance includes coverage for certain damages arising out of product design and manufacturing defects. The Company's insurance coverage is generally subject to a per occurrence retention.

The Company reserves for costs associated with claims, as well as incurred but not reported losses (“IBNR”), based on an outside actuarial analysis of its historical claims. These estimates make up a significant portion of the Company's liability and are subject to a high degree of uncertainty due to a variety of factors, including changes in type of claims, claims reporting and resolution patterns, frequency and timing of claims, third party recoveries, estimates of claim values, claims management expenses (including legal fees and expert fees), insurance industry practices, the regulatory environment, and legal precedent. Adjustments to estimated reserves are recorded in the period in which the change in estimate occurs.

Litigation

During the past several years, the Company incurred increased litigation expense primarily related to the claims discussed below. The Company believes it has valid defenses to the outstanding claims discussed below and will vigorously defend all such claims; however, litigation is subject to many uncertainties and there cannot be any assurance that the Company will ultimately prevail or, in the event of an unfavorable outcome or settlement of litigation, that the ultimate liability would not be material and would not have a material adverse effect on the business, results of operations, cash flows or financial position of the Company.

In John Gulbankian v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. (“Gulbankian”), a purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of certain MW vinyl clad windows. In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. (“Hartshorn”), a purported class action filed in July 2012 in the District Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of certain MW vinyl clad windows. In April 2014, plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, making similar claims against all MW vinyl clad windows.

MW entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April 2014 to settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a nationwide basis (the “Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement”). The Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement provides that this settlement applies to any and all MW vinyl clad windows manufactured from January 1, 1987 through May 23, 2014, and provides for a cash payment for eligible consumers submitting qualified claims showing, among other requirements, certain damage to their MW vinyl clad windows. The period for submitting qualified claims is the later of: (i) May 28, 2016, or (ii) the last day of the warranty period for the applicable window. On December 29, 2014, the District Court granted final approval of this settlement, as well as MW’s payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $2.5 million. The Company and MW deny all liability in the settlements with respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company, however, is aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, and therefore agreed to settle these matters.

As a result of the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement, the Company recognized a $5.0 million expense during the year ended December 31, 2014 within selling, general, and administrative expenses in the Company’s consolidated statement of operations in the Windows and Doors segment. It is possible that the Company may incur costs in excess of the recorded amounts; however, the Company currently expects that the total net cost will not exceed $5.0 million. As of December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, approximately $1.4 million of this liability is currently outstanding, with $0.7 million as a current liability within accrued expenses and $0.7 million as a noncurrent liability within other long-term liabilities in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016 and 2015.
    
In Anthony Pagliaroni et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and railing, which was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC (“Deceuninck”) and sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. (“MHE”). The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. The hearing regarding plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was held on March 10, 2015, and the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on September 22, 2015. On October, 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory appeal of the denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and on April 12, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied this petition for appeal. Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has agreed to indemnify MHE for certain liabilities related to this claim pursuant to the sales and distribution agreement, as amended, between Deceuninck and MHE. MHE's ability to seek indemnification from Deceuninck is, however, limited by the terms and limits of the indemnity as well as the strength of Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change in the future.

In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation is a purported federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company’s initial public offering ("IPO"). It is filed on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s IPO and seeks remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Company’s Form S-1 registration statement was negligently prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material information which was required to be disclosed. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) damages together with interest thereon and (ii) attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation. On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. On February 13, 2015, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 29, 2015, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, but ruled that plaintiff could file an amended complaint. On November 6, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on January 13, 2016, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss this amended complaint. On September 23, 2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in part this motion to dismiss. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013, entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses reasonably incurred by the underwriters’ law firm in its representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter. Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013, between the Company and each of the directors and officers named in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of such directors and officers. We believe the purported federal securities class action is without merit and will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

In Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation, a purported class action filed on November 25, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of, among other things, the defendants’ failure to provide (i) statutorily required meal breaks at the Sacramento, California facility, (ii) accurate wage statements to employees in California, and (iii) all wages due on termination in California. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) penalties, (iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On January 7, 2017, the parties agreed to settle this matter for approximately $1.0 million, subject to certain conditions including approval by the Court. The Company has accrued for this amount in accrued expenses as of December 31, 2016 in the Company's consolidated balance sheet and expensed this amount in selling, general, and administrative expenses in the Company's consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for the year ended December 31, 2016.

In Tina Morgan v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Simonton Industries, Inc., a purported class action filed on December 11, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of, among other things, the defendants’ failure at the Vacaville, California facility to (i) pay overtime wages, (ii) provide statutorily required meal breaks, (iii) provide accurate wage statements, and (iv) pay all wages owed upon termination. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) penalties, (iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On December 9, 2016, the parties agreed to settle this matter for approximately $0.9 million, subject to certain conditions including approval by the Court. The Company has accrued for this amount in accrued expenses as of December 31, 2016 in the Company's consolidated balance sheet and expensed this amount in selling, general, and administrative expenses in the Company's consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for the year ended December 31, 2016.

In Kiefer et al. v. Simonton Building Products, LLC et al., a purported class action filed on October 17, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of, among other things, the defective design and manufacture of certain Simonton windows containing two-pane insulating glass units. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive or other exemplary damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On December 23, 2016, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. A hearing on this motion was held on February 17, 2017, and the District Court has not yet ruled on this motion. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified.

Other contingencies

The Company is subject to other contingencies, including legal proceedings and claims arising out of its operations and businesses that cover a wide range of matters, including, among others, environmental, contract, employment, intellectual property, securities, personal injury, property damage, product liability, warranty, and modification, adjustment or replacement of component parts or units sold, which may include product recalls.  Product liability, environmental and other legal proceedings also include matters with respect to businesses previously owned.  The Company has used various substances in products and manufacturing operations, which have been or may be deemed to be hazardous or dangerous, and the extent of its potential liability, if any, under environmental, product liability and workers’ compensation statutes, rules, regulations and case law is unclear.  Further, due to the lack of adequate information and the potential impact of present regulations and any future regulations, there are certain circumstances in which no range of potential exposure may be reasonably estimated.  Also, it is not possible to ascertain the ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to certain contingent liabilities, including lawsuits, and therefore no such estimate has been made as of December 31, 2016.