Commitments And Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments And Contingencies

Commitments And Contingencies

8.  Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

We are a party to legal proceedings, which have arisen in the ordinary course of business and involve claims for monetary damages.  As of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, we had accrued approximately $2 and $3, respectively, for legal costs to defend ourselves in legal matters.

Except for the potential effect of an unfavorable outcome with respect to our Legacy Tort Claims Litigation, it is our opinion that the aggregate of all claims and lawsuits will not have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Legacy Tort Claims Litigation

Pursuant to the Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement effective February 28, 2008, entered into by us and Monsanto in connection with our emergence from Chapter 11 (the "Monsanto Settlement Agreement"), Monsanto is responsible to defend and indemnify us for any Legacy Tort Claims as that term is defined in the Monsanto Settlement Agreement, while we retain responsibility for tort claims, if any, which may arise out of our conduct after our spinoff from Pharmacia, which occurred on September 1, 1997.  We or our fully owned subsidiary, Flexsys, have been named as defendants in the following actions, and have submitted the matters to Monsanto as Legacy Tort Claims.  However, to the extent these matters relate to post Solutia Spinoff conduct or such matters are not within the meaning of Legacy Tort Claims as defined in the Monsanto Settlement Agreement, we could potentially be liable.

Putnam County, West Virginia Litigation.In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia against Flexsys, Pharmacia, Monsanto and Akzo Nobel (Solutia is not a named defendant) alleging exposure to dioxin from Flexsys' Nitro, West Virginia facility, which is now closed.  The relevant production activities at the facility occurred during Pharmacia's ownership and operation of the facility and well prior to the creation of the Flexsys joint venture between Pharmacia (whose interest was subsequently transferred to us in the Solutia Spinoff) and Akzo Nobel.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages for loss of property value, medical monitoring and other equitable relief.  In May 2011, the West Virginia circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of Flexsys in the class action litigation, and dismissed Flexsys with prejudice from the case.  Specifically, the court held that plaintiffs had presented no evidence of contamination or distribution of dioxin by Flexsys during its ownership of the Nitro facility.

Beginning in February 2008, Flexsys, Monsanto, Pharmacia, Akzo Nobel and another third party were named as defendants in approximately seventy-five individual lawsuits, and Solutia was named in two individual lawsuits, filed in various state court jurisdictions by residents or former residents of Putnam County, West Virginia.  The largely identical complaints allege that the residents were exposed to potentially harmful levels of dioxin particles from the Nitro facility.  Plaintiffs did not specify the amount of their alleged damages in their complaints.  In 2009, over fifty additional nearly identical complaints were filed by individual plaintiffs in the Putnam County area, which named Solutia and Flexsys as defendants, and one additional complaint was filed in January 2011.

The claims in this matter concern alleged conduct occurring while Flexsys was a joint venture between us and Akzo Nobel, and any potential damages in these cases would be evenly apportioned between us and Akzo Nobel to the extent such claims are determined not to be Legacy Tort Claims.

Escambia County, Florida Litigation.In June 2008, a group of approximately fifty property owners and business owners in the Pensacola, Florida area filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Escambia County, Florida against Monsanto, Pharmacia, Solutia and the plant manager at Solutia's former Pensacola plant, an Integrated Nylon asset that was included in the divestiture of our Integrated Nylon business.  The lawsuit, entitled John Allen, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al., alleges that the defendants are responsible for elevated levels of PCBs in the Escambia River and Escambia Bay due to past and continuing releases of PCBs from the Pensacola plant.  The plaintiffs seek: (1) damages associated with alleged decreased property values caused by the alleged contamination and (2) remediation of the alleged contamination in the waterways.  Plaintiffs did not specify the amount of their alleged damages in their complaint.  Plaintiffs have subsequently amended their complaint twice to add additional plaintiffs to the litigation, such that approximately 150 property and business owners are now named as plaintiffs.

St. Clair County, Illinois and Related Litigation.In February 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois against Solutia, Pharmacia, Monsanto and two other unrelated defendants alleging the contamination of the plaintiff's property from PCBs, dioxins, furans and other hazardous substances emanating from the defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois (including our W.G. Krummrich site in Sauget, Illinois).  The proposed class action is comprised of residents who live within a two-mile radius of the Sauget facilities.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages for medical monitoring and the costs associated with remediation and removal of contaminants from their property.  This action is one of several lawsuits (primarily filed by the same plaintiffs' counsel) over the past year regarding alleged historical contamination from the W.G. Krummrich site.

In addition to the purported class action lawsuit, twenty additional individual lawsuits have been filed since February 2009 against the same defendants (including Solutia) comprised of claims from over one thousand individual residents of Illinois who claim they suffered illnesses and/or injuries as well as property damages as a result of the same PCBs, dioxins, furans and other hazardous substances allegedly emanating from the defendants' facilities in Sauget.  In June 2010, a group of approximately 1,200 plaintiffs also filed wrongful death claims in a lawsuit in St. Clair County arising out of alleged contamination from the defendants' facilities.  Moreover, four additional individual lawsuits comprised of claims from twelve plaintiffs were filed between January and April 2010 in Madison County, Illinois, alleging that plaintiffs suffered illnesses resulting from exposure to benzene, PCBs, dioxins, furans and other hazardous substances.  Lastly, in June 2010, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Missouri against the same defendants alleging the contamination of the plaintiffs' property from PCBs, dioxins, furans and other hazardous substances emanating from the defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois and from our now-closed Queeny plant in St. Louis.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages for medical monitoring and the costs associated with remediation and removal of alleged contaminants from their property.  The proposed class members include residents exclusively within the state of Missouri.

Upon assessment of the terms of the Monsanto Settlement Agreement and other defenses available to us, we believe the probability of an unfavorable outcome to us on the Putnam County, West Virginia; Escambia County, Florida; and St. Clair County, Illinois and related litigation against us is remote and, accordingly, we have not recorded a loss contingency.  Nonetheless, if it were subsequently determined these matters are not within the meaning of Legacy Tort Claims, as defined in the Monsanto Settlement Agreement, or other defenses to us were unsuccessful, it is reasonably possible we would be liable for an amount which cannot be estimated but which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Resolution of Tax Indemnification

During the second quarter 2010, we received a favorable settlement in a tax indemnification case related to income taxes we paid on a business for periods prior to our acquisition.  The settlement resulted in an $8 gain recorded in other income (loss), net within Unallocated and Other during the three and six months ended June 30, 2010.

Environmental Liabilities

In the ordinary course of business, we are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations covering compliance matters or imposing liability for the costs of, and damages resulting from, cleaning up sites, past spills, disposals and other releases of hazardous substances.  We have incurred, and we may in the future incur, liabilities to investigate and clean up waste or contamination at our current facilities, properties adjacent to our current facilities or facilities operated by third parties at where we may have disposed of waste or other materials.  Under some circumstances, the scope of our liability may extend to damages to natural resources for which we have accrued $2 as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, which is exclusive of the balances noted below.  In almost all cases, our potential liability arising from historical contamination is based on operations and other events occurring at our facilities or as a result of their operation prior to the Solutia Spinoff.

Further, under terms of the Monsanto Settlement Agreement, we have agreed to share responsibility with Monsanto for the environmental remediation at certain locations outside our plant boundaries in Anniston, Alabama and Sauget, Illinois which were also incurred prior to the Solutia Spinoff (the "Shared Sites").  Under this cost-sharing arrangement, we are responsible for the funding of environmental liabilities at the Shared Sites from February 28, 2008 (the "Effective Date") up to a total of $325.  Thereafter, if needed, we and Monsanto will share responsibility equally.  From the Effective Date through June 30, 2011, we have made cash payments of $31 toward remediation of the Shared Sites and have accrued an additional $163 to be paid over the life of the Shared Sites remediation activity.

Reserves for environmental remediation that we believe to be probable and estimable are recorded appropriately as current and long-term liabilities in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position.  These reserves include liabilities expected to be paid out within fifteen years.  The amounts charged to pre-tax earnings for environmental remediation and related charges are included in cost of goods sold and are summarized below:

	Total
Balance at December 31, 2010	$	273
Net charges taken		3
Amounts utilized		(11)
Currency fluctuations		1
Balance at June 30, 2011	$	266

	June 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Environmental Remediation Liabilities, current	$	32	$	29
Environmental Remediation Liabilities, long-term		234		244
Total	$	266	$	273

In addition to accrued environmental liabilities, there are costs which have not met the definition of probable, and accordingly, are not recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position.  These loss contingencies are monitored regularly for a change in fact or circumstance that would require an accrual adjustment.  These matters involve significant unresolved issues, including the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations, the outcome of negotiations with regulatory authorities and alternative methods of remediation. Because of these uncertainties, the potential liability for existing environmental remediation may range up to two times the amount recorded, which would be settled through cash payment over an extended period of time.
 

Except as noted below, we believe that these matters, when ultimately resolved, which may be over an extended period of time, will not have a material adverse effect on our Consolidated Statement of Financial Position, but could have a material adverse effect on our Consolidated Statement of Operations in any given period.  Our significant sites are described in more detail below:

Anniston, Alabama.  On Aug. 4, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama approved a Revised Partial Consent Decree, pursuant to which Pharmacia and Solutia are obligated to perform, among other things, residential cleanup work and a remedial investigation/feasibility study ("RI/FS") as a result of PCB contamination from our Anniston plant, which occurred prior to the Solutia Spinoff.  The residential cleanup of available properties was completed in 2010.  Furthermore, in 2010 the Anniston Plant Site RI/FS was approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") and we expect the Record of Decision setting out the required remedies associated with the plant to be issued within the next twelve months.  The RI/FS for the non-residential properties and the creeks/floodplain are ongoing but it is probable that some level of remediation and/or sediment removal will be required in the future.  We have accrued for this liability based upon our understanding of the level and extent of contamination in these areas, the remedial effort likely to be required by various governmental organizations and estimated costs associated with similar remediation projects.  We may recover some of our investigation and remediation costs from parties, against whom we filed a cost recovery action in July 2003 but because the eventual outcome of these proceedings is uncertain, our environmental liability at June 30, 2011 does not incorporate this potential reimbursement.  State and Federal Natural Resource Damage Trustees have asserted a claim for potential natural resource damage and advised us that they are preparing to undertake an assessment as to the nature and extent of such damages.  These Trustees have requested we consider entering into a cooperative agreement to perform a damage assessment and discussions on such an agreement are ongoing.  As of June 30, 2011, we have accrued $108 for all environmental remediation projects in the Anniston, Alabama area which represents our best estimate of the ultimate liability.  Timing of the remediation will not be established until we complete the RI/FS, a Record of Decision is issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), and a consent decree is negotiated and entered by the court to cover the selected remediation, which will take several years.

Sauget, Illinois.  A number of industries, including our W.G. Krummrich Plant, have operated and disposed of wastes in Sauget, Illinois.  Areas of contamination from these industrial operations, which for our W.G. Krummrich Plant occurred prior to the Solutia Spinoff, have been classified as part of either the Sauget Area 1 Sites or the Sauget Area 2 Sites.  We conducted a RI/FS for the Sauget Area 1 Sites under an Administrative Order on Consent issued on January 21, 1999.  Although an extensive removal action for one of the Sauget Area 1 Sites was conducted under a Unilateral Administrative Order issued on May 31, 2000, the cost and timing of any additional required remedial actions will be established only after a Record of Decision is issued by the USEPA, and a consent decree is negotiated and entered by the court to cover the selected remediation.  We have an agreement with two other potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") to enter into an allocation proceeding upon issuance of the Record of Decision to resolve our respective shares of the liability for the Sauget Area 1 Sites.  With respect to the Sauget Area 2 Sites, we, in coordination with 19 other PRPs, are also required to conduct a RI/FS for the Sauget Area 2 Sites under an Administrative Order on Consent issued effective November 24, 2000.  We submitted the revised RI/FS report with these PRPs based on interim allocations and have agreed, upon issuance of the Record of Decision, to participate in an allocation proceeding to fully resolve each PRP's share of the liability for the investigation and remediation costs.  For each of the Sauget Area 1 and 2 Sites, we anticipate the USEPA and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA") to issue a Record of Decision with final action for the landfill/impoundment covers within the next two years.   However, although an interim groundwater remedy has been installed pursuant to a Unilateral Administrative Order issued on October 3, 2002, it is uncertain when the USEPA and IEPA will issue a final remedy for the groundwater operable unit.  Our ultimate exposure at these sites will depend on the final remedial actions to be taken and on the level of contribution from other PRPs.  In addition, several PRPs, including Solutia and Pharmacia, received in June 2009 from the U.S. Department of the Interior, on behalf of various federal and state natural resource trustees, a notice of intent to perform and an invitation to cooperate in a natural resource damage assessment for the Sauget Industrial Corridor.  Our best estimate of the ultimate cost of all remedial measures that will be required at the Sauget, Illinois area sites is $68 which we have accrued as of June 30, 2011.

 

W. G. Krummrich Site.  We entered into a Consent Order under the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, effective May 3, 2000, to investigate and remediate soil and groundwater contamination from our manufacturing operations at the W.G. Krummrich Plant, which occurred prior to the Solutia Spinoff.  We conducted an extensive corrective measures study and a Final Decision was issued by the USEPA in February 2008 setting out the required corrective measures to be completed.  Due to the complexity of the contamination issues at this site, certain of the corrective measures will be performed in phases.  Required pilot testing has been completed and the design/implementation of full scale remediation systems has commenced with operation of these systems expected until at least 2015. Our best estimate of the ultimate cost of all corrective measures that will be required at the W.G. Krummrich Site is $22, which we have accrued as of June 30, 2011.

We also have accruals for remedial obligations at several of our current or former manufacturing sites which we have owned or operated since the Solutia Spinoff.  Our best estimate of the ultimate cost of all corrective measures that will be required at these sites is $68 which we have accrued as of June 30, 2011.