Print Page  Close Window

SEC Filings

10-Q
ACETO CORP filed this Form 10-Q on 11/03/2017
Entire Document
 << Previous Page | Next Page >>

 

 

ACETO CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(unaudited and in thousands, except per-share amounts)

 

 

In connection with the environmental remediation obligation for Arsynco, in July 2009, Arsynco 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 September 30, 2017 and June 30, 2017 is $3,540 and $3,803, 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 the same proceeding. Arsynco entered into an 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. In July 2015, Arsynco was contacted by an allocation consultant retained by a group of the named PRPs, inviting Arsynco to participate in the allocation among the PRPs’ investigation and remediation costs relating to the BCSA. Arsynco declined that invitation. 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 currently 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 $2,357 through the next twelve months.

 

(8) Fair Value Measurements

 

GAAP defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly fashion between market participants at the measurement date. GAAP establishes a fair value hierarchy for those instruments measured at fair value that distinguishes between assumptions based on market data (observable inputs) and the Company’s assumptions (unobservable inputs). The hierarchy consists of three levels:

 

Level 1 – Quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities;

 

 13 
 << Previous Page | Next Page >>