12. CONTINGENCIES
Litigation
In the normal course of our operations, we may be subject to lawsuits, investigations and other claims, including environmental, labor, product, customer disputes and other matters. Management believes that adequate provisions have been recorded in the accounts where required. Although it is not always possible to estimate the extent of potential costs, if any, management believes that the ultimate resolution of all such pending matters will not have a material adverse impact on our financial performance, financial position or liquidity.
In 2007, securities class action lawsuits were commenced against us and our former Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers, in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York by certain individuals, on behalf of themselves and other unnamed purchasers of our stock, claiming that they were purchasers of our stock during the period January 27, 2005 through January 30, 2007. The plaintiffs allege violations of United States federal securities laws and seek unspecified damages. They allege that during the purported period we made statements concerning our actual and anticipated future financial results that failed to disclose certain purportedly material adverse information with respect to demand and inventory in our Mexico operations and our information technology and communications divisions. In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs added one of our directors and Onex Corporation as defendants. On October 14, 2010, the District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the dismissal of their claims against us, and our former Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers, but not as to the other defendants. In a summary order dated December 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The discovery phase of the case has been completed. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the case in its entirety, and plaintiffs moved for class certification and for partial summary judgment on certain elements of their claims. In an order dated February 21, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification because they sought to include in their proposed class persons who purchased Celestica stock in Canada. Plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification on April 23, 2014, removing Canadian stock purchasers from their proposed class in accordance with the District Court's February 21 order. Defendants opposed plaintiffs' renewed motion on May 5, 2014 on the grounds that the plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives. On August 20, 2014, the District Court denied our motion for summary judgment. The District Court also denied the majority of plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, but granted plaintiffs' motion on market efficiency. The District Court also granted plaintiffs' renewed class certification motion and certified plaintiffs' revised class. A trial date has been set for April 20, 2015.
Parallel class proceedings remain against us and our former Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On October 15, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted limited aspects of the defendants' motion to strike, but dismissed the defendants' limitation period argument. The defendants' appeal of the limitation period issue was dismissed on February 3, 2014 when the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned its own prior decision on the limitation period issue. On August 7, 2014, the defendants were granted leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, together with two other cases that deal with the limitation period issue. The Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to hear the appeal on February 9, 2015. In a decision dated February 19, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the plaintiffs leave to proceed with a statutory claim under the Ontario Securities Act and certified the action as a class proceeding on the claim that the defendants made misrepresentations regarding the 2005 restructuring. The court denied the plaintiffs leave and certification on the claims that the defendants did not properly report Celestica's inventory and revenue and that Celestica's financial statements did not comply with Canadian GAAP. The court also denied certification of the plaintiffs' common law claims. The action is at the discovery stage.
The parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions. However, there can be no assurance that such discussions will result in settlements, or that any settlements or other dispositions of the lawsuits will not be in excess of amounts accrued or covered by our liability insurance policies. If settlements on terms acceptable to the company are not reached, the company intends to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. We believe the allegations in the claims are without merit. However, there can be no assurance that the outcome of these lawsuits will be favorable to us or that they will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position or liquidity. In addition, we may incur substantial litigation expenses in defending the claims. As the matters are ongoing, we cannot predict their durations or resources required. We have liability insurance coverage that may cover some of our litigation expenses, and potential judgments or settlement costs.
Income taxes
We are subject to tax audits and reviews globally by various tax authorities of historical information which could result in additional tax expense in future periods relating to prior results. Reviews by tax authorities generally focus on, but are not limited to, the validity of our inter-company transactions, including financing and transfer pricing policies which generally involve subjective areas of taxation and a significant degree of judgment. If any of these tax authorities are successful with their challenges, our income tax expense may be adversely affected and we could also be subject to interest and penalty charges.
Tax authorities in Canada have taken the position that income reported by one of our Canadian subsidiaries should have been materially higher in 2001 and 2002 and materially lower in 2003 and 2004 as a result of certain inter-company transactions, and have imposed limitations on benefits associated with favorable adjustments arising from inter-company transactions and other adjustments. We have appealed this decision with the Canadian tax authorities and have sought assistance from the relevant Competent Authorities in resolving the transfer pricing matter under relevant treaty principles. We could be required to provide security up to an estimated maximum range of $20 million to $25 million Canadian dollars (approximately $17 to $22 at year-end exchange rates) in the form of letters of credit to the tax authorities in connection with the transfer pricing appeal, however, we do not believe that such security will be required. If the tax authorities are successful with their challenge, we estimate that the maximum net impact for additional income taxes and interest charges associated with the proposed limitations of the favorable adjustments could be approximately $41 million Canadian dollars (approximately $35 at year-end exchange rates).
Canadian tax authorities have taken the position that certain interest amounts deducted by one of our Canadian entities in 2002 through 2004 on historical debt instruments should be re-characterized as capital losses. If the tax authorities are successful with their challenge, we estimate that the maximum net impact for additional income taxes and interest charges could be approximately $32 million Canadian dollars (approximately $28 at year-end exchange rates). We have appealed this decision with the Canadian tax authorities and have provided the requisite security to the tax authorities, including a letter of credit in January 2014 of $5 million Canadian dollars (approximately $5 at year-end exchange rates), in addition to amounts previously on account, in order to proceed with the appeal. We believe that our asserted position is appropriate and would be sustained upon full examination by the tax authorities and, if necessary, upon consideration by the judicial courts. Our position is supported by our Canadian legal tax advisors.
