Note 16. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

As part of our normal business activities, we may be named as defendants in legal proceedings, including those arising from regulatory and environmental matters. Although we are insured against various risks to the extent we believe it is prudent, there is no assurance that the nature and amount of such insurance will be adequate, in every case, to fully indemnify us against losses arising from future legal proceedings. We will vigorously defend the partnership in litigation matters.

Management has regular quarterly litigation reviews, including updates from legal counsel, to assess the possible need for accounting recognition and disclosure of these contingencies. We accrue an undiscounted liability for those contingencies where the loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If a range of probable loss amounts can be reasonably estimated and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, then the minimum amount in the range is accrued.

We do not record a contingent liability when the likelihood of loss is probable but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated or when the likelihood of loss is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. For contingencies where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and the impact would be material to our consolidated financial statements, we disclose the nature of the contingency and, where feasible, an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Based on a consideration of all relevant known facts and circumstances, we do not believe that the ultimate outcome of any currently pending litigation directed against us will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements either individually at the claim level or in the aggregate.

At June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, our accruals for litigation contingencies were $4.5 million and recorded in our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as a component of “Other current liabilities.” Our evaluation of litigation contingencies is based on the facts and circumstances of each case and predicting the outcome of these matters involves uncertainties. In the event the assumptions we use to evaluate these matters change in future periods or new information becomes available, we may be required to record additional accruals. In an effort to mitigate expenses associated with litigation, we may settle legal proceedings out of court.

ETP Matter. In connection with a proposed pipeline project, we and ETP signed a non-binding letter of intent in April 2011 that disclaimed any partnership or joint venture related to such project absent executed definitive documents and board approvals of the respective companies. Definitive agreements were never executed and board approval was never obtained for the potential pipeline project. In August 2011, the proposed pipeline project was cancelled due to a lack of customer support.

In September 2011, ETP filed suit against us and a third party in connection with the cancelled project alleging, among other things, that we and ETP had formed a “partnership.” The case was tried in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 298th Judicial District. While we firmly believe, and argued during our defense, that no agreement was ever executed forming a legal joint venture or partnership between the parties, the jury found that the actions of the two companies, nevertheless, constituted a legal partnership. As a result, the jury found that ETP was wrongfully excluded from a subsequent pipeline project involving a third party, and awarded ETP $319.4 million in actual damages on March 4, 2014. On July 29, 2014, the court entered judgment against us in an aggregate amount of $535.8 million, which included (i) $319.4 million as the amount of actual damages awarded by the jury, (ii) an additional $150.0 million in disgorgement for the alleged benefit we received due to a breach of fiduciary duties by us against ETP and (iii) prejudgment interest in the amount of $66.4 million. The court also awarded post-judgment interest on such aggregate amount, to accrue at a rate of 5%, compounded annually.

We filed our Brief of the Appellant in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Dallas, Texas on March 30, 2015 and ETP filed its Brief of Appellees on June 29, 2015. We filed our Reply Brief of Appellant on September 18, 2015. Oral argument was conducted on April 20, 2016, and the case was then submitted to the Court of Appeals for its consideration. On July 18, 2017, a panel of the Court of Appeals issued a unanimous opinion reversing the trial court’s judgment as to all of ETP’s claims against us, rendering judgment that ETP take nothing on those claims, and affirming our counterclaim against ETP of approximately $0.8 million, plus interest.

On August 31, 2017, ETP filed a motion for rehearing before the Dallas Court of Appeals, which was denied on September 13, 2017. On December 27, 2017, ETP filed its Petition for Review with the Supreme Court of Texas and we filed our Response to the Petition for Review on February 26, 2018. On June 8, 2018, the Supreme Court of Texas requested that the parties file briefs on the merits, and the parties are drafting their respective submittals. As of June 30, 2018, we have not recorded a provision for this matter as management continues to believe that payment of damages by us in this case is not probable. We continue to monitor developments involving this matter.

PDH Litigation. In July 2013, we executed a contract with Foster Wheeler USA Corporation (“Foster Wheeler”) pursuant to which Foster Wheeler was to serve as the general contractor responsible for the engineering, procurement, construction and installation of our propane dehydrogenation (“PDH”) facility. In November 2014, Foster Wheeler was acquired by an affiliate of AMEC plc to form Amec Foster Wheeler plc, and Foster Wheeler is now known as Amec Foster Wheeler USA Corporation (“AFW”). In December 2015, Enterprise and AFW entered into a transition services agreement under which AFW was partially terminated from the PDH project. In December 2015, Enterprise engaged a second contractor, Optimized Process Designs LLC, to complete the construction and installation of the PDH facility.

On September 2, 2016, we terminated AFW for cause and filed a lawsuit in the 151st Judicial Civil District Court of Harris County, Texas against AFW and its parent company, Amec Foster Wheeler plc, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraudulent inducement, string-along fraud, gross negligence, professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation and attorneys’ fees. We intend to diligently prosecute these claims and seek all direct, consequential, and exemplary damages to which we may be entitled.

Contractual Obligations

Scheduled Maturities of Debt. We have long-term and short-term payment obligations under debt agreements. See Note 7 for additional information regarding our scheduled future maturities of debt principal.

Operating Lease Obligations. Consolidated lease and rental expense was $25.8 million and $25.9 million during the three months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, consolidated lease and rental expense was $51.4 million and $52.1 million, respectively. Our operating lease commitments at June 30, 2018 did not differ materially from those reported in our 2017 Form 10-K.

Purchase Obligations. During the first six months of 2018, we entered into long-term product purchase commitments for crude oil with third party suppliers in order to meet future physical delivery obligations on our various systems. On a combined basis, these agreements increased our estimated long-term purchase obligations by approximately $1.2 billion over the next five years and $1.7 billion overall. Apart from these new agreements, there have been no other material changes in our consolidated purchase obligations since those reported in our 2017 Form 10-K.

Liquidity Option Agreement

We entered into a put option agreement (the “Liquidity Option Agreement” or “Liquidity Option”) with Oiltanking Holding Americas, Inc. (“OTA”) and Marquard & Bahls AG, a German corporation and the ultimate parent company of OTA (“M&B”), in connection with the first step of the Oiltanking acquisition (“Step 1”). Under the Liquidity Option Agreement, we granted M&B the option to sell to us 100% of the issued and outstanding capital stock of OTA at any time within a 90-day period commencing on February 1, 2020. If the Liquidity Option is exercised, we would indirectly acquire any Enterprise common units owned by OTA, currently 54,807,352 units, and assume all future income tax obligations of OTA associated with (i) owning partnership units encumbered by the entity-level taxes of a U.S. corporation and (ii) OTA’s deferred tax liabilities. To the extent that the sum of OTA’s deferred tax liabilities exceeds the then current book value of the Liquidity Option liability, we would recognize expense for the difference.

The carrying value of the Liquidity Option Agreement, which is a component of “Other long-term liabilities” on our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, was $350.3 million and $333.9 million at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively. The fair value of the Liquidity Option, at any measurement date, represents the present value of estimated federal and state income tax payments that we believe a market participant would incur on the future taxable income of OTA. We expect that OTA’s taxable income would, in turn, be based on an allocation of our partnership’s taxable income to the common units then held by OTA and reflect any tax planning we believe could be employed. Our valuation estimate for the Liquidity Option at June 30, 2018 is based on several inputs that are not observable in the market (i.e., Level 3 inputs) such as the following:

	OTA remains in existence (i.e., is not dissolved and its assets sold) between one and 30 years following exercise of the Liquidity Option, depending on the liquidity preference of its owner. An equal probability that OTA would be dissolved was assigned to each year in the 30-year forecast period;

	Forecasted annual growth rates of Enterprise’s taxable earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ranging from 2.1% to 7.2%;

	OTA’s ownership interest in Enterprise common units is assumed to be diluted over time in connection with Enterprise’s issuance of equity for general company reasons. For purposes of the valuation at June 30, 2018, we used ownership interests ranging from 1.8% to 2.5%;

	OTA pays an aggregate federal and state income tax rate of 24% on its taxable income; and

	A discount rate of 8.0% based on our weighted-average cost of capital at June 30, 2018.

Furthermore, our valuation estimate incorporates probability-weighted scenarios reflecting the likelihood that M&B may elect to divest a portion of the Enterprise common units held by OTA prior to exercise of the option. At June 30, 2018, based on these scenarios, we expect that OTA would own approximately 92% of the 54,807,352 Enterprise common units it received in Step 1 when the option period begins in February 2020. If our valuation estimate assumed that OTA owned all of the Enterprise common units it received in Step 1 at the time of exercise (and all other inputs remained the same), the estimated fair value of the Liquidity Option liability at June 30, 2018 would have increased by $31.1 million.

Changes in the fair value of the Liquidity Option are recognized in earnings as a component of other income (expense) on our Unaudited Condensed Statements of Consolidated Operations.