Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

As of June 30, 2019, purchase commitments for capital expenditures were $130.8 million, all of which is obligated within the next three years, with $123.5 million obligated within the next 12 months.

There were no other material changes to the Company’s commitments from the information provided in Note 26. “Commitments and Contingencies” to the consolidated financial statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018.

Contingencies

From time to time, the Company or its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or related to indemnities or historical operations. The Company believes it has recorded adequate reserves for these liabilities. The Company discusses its significant legal proceedings below, including ongoing proceedings and those that impacted the Company’s results of operations for the periods presented.

Litigation Relating to Bankruptcy

Ad Hoc Committee. A group of creditors (the Ad Hoc Committee) that held certain interests in the Company's prepetition indebtedness appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming the Company’s plan of reorganization (the Plan). On December 29, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the District Court) entered an order dismissing the Ad Hoc Committee's appeal, and, in the alternative, affirming the order confirming the Plan. On January 26, 2018, the Ad Hoc Committee appealed the District Court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the Eighth Circuit). In its appeal, the Ad Hoc Committee does not ask the Eighth Circuit to reverse the order confirming the Plan. Instead, the Ad Hoc Committee asks the Eighth Circuit to award the Ad Hoc Committee members either unspecified damages or the right to buy an unspecified amount of Company stock at a discount. Oral argument on the appeal was held April 16, 2019, and the Eighth Circuit panel reserved decision and took the case under submission. The Company does not believe the appeal is meritorious and will vigorously defend against the Ad Hoc Committee’s claims.

Litigation Relating to Continuing Operations

Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd and Peabody Energy Australia PCI Pty Ltd (PEA-PCI). In October 2007, a claim was made against Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary, and Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd, an equity accounted investee of Macarthur Coal Limited (Macarthur), now known as PEA-PCI. The claim, made by the minority interest holders in the joint venture, alleged that the Macarthur companies breached certain agreements by failing to develop a mine project. The claim was amended to assert that Macarthur induced the alleged breach of the Monto Coal Joint Venture Agreement. The Company acquired Macarthur and its subsidiaries in 2011. These claims, which are pending before the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, seek damages of up to $1.1 billion Australian dollars, plus interest and costs.

The Company asserts that the Macarthur companies were never under an obligation to develop the mine project because the project was not economically viable. The Company disputes all of the claims brought by the plaintiffs and is vigorously defending its position. The trial commenced on April 8, 2019 and is scheduled to finish in October 2019.

County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach. The Company was named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in three nearly identical lawsuits brought by municipalities in California. The lawsuits seek to hold a wide variety of companies that produce fossil fuels liable for the alleged impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to those fuels. The lawsuits primarily assert that the companies’ products have caused a sea level rise that is damaging the plaintiffs. The complaints specifically alleged that the defendants’ activities from 1965 to 2015 caused such damage. The Company filed a motion to enforce the Plan because it enjoins claims that arose before the effective date of the Plan. The motion to enforce was granted on October 24, 2017, and the Bankruptcy Court ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss their lawsuits against the Company. On November 26, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s October 24, 2017 order to the District Court. On November 28, 2017, plaintiffs sought a stay pending appeal from the Bankruptcy Court, which was denied on December 8, 2017. On December 19, 2017, the plaintiffs moved the District Court for a stay pending appeal. The District Court denied the stay request on September 20, 2018, and the plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Eighth Circuit. On March 29, 2019, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court ruling enjoining the plaintiffs from proceeding with their lawsuits against the Company. That ruling likewise is being appealed. In the underlying cases pending in California, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs’ motion for remand and decided the cases should be heard in state court. The defendants appealed the order granting remand to the Ninth Circuit and sought a stay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California decision pending completion of the Ninth Circuit appeal. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendants’ request for a stay pending completion of the Ninth Circuit appeal. The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss part of the appeal. The parties are now litigating at the Ninth Circuit whether a state or federal court should hear these lawsuits. Regardless of whether state court or federal court is the venue, the Company believes the lawsuits against it should be dismissed under enforcement of the Plan. The Company does not believe the lawsuits are meritorious and, if the lawsuits are not dismissed, the Company intends to vigorously defend them.

10th Circuit U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Appeal. On September 15, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court of Wyoming’s decision upholding BLM’s approval of four coal leases in the Powder River Basin. Two of the four leases relate to the Company’s North Antelope Rochelle Mine in Wyoming. There is no immediate impact on the Company’s leases as the Court of Appeals did not vacate the leases as part of its ruling. Rather, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the District Court of Wyoming with directions to order BLM to revise its environmental analysis. On November 27, 2017, the District Court of Wyoming ordered BLM to revise its environmental analysis. BLM published its draft environmental analysis on July 30, 2018. The Company, along with the National Mining Association, the Wyoming Mining Association and Arch, submitted comments on the draft environmental analysis by the comment deadline of October 4, 2018. BLM completed its final environmental analysis, prepared a finding of no significant impact, and re-affirmed its decision to issue the leases. The Company’s operations will continue in the normal course during this period since the decision has no impact on mining at this time. The Company currently believes that its operations are unlikely to be materially impacted by this case, but the timing and magnitude of any impact on the Company’s future operations is not certain.

Other

At times the Company becomes a party to other disputes, including those related to contract miner performance, claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, regulatory investigations and administrative procedures in the ordinary course of business in the U.S., Australia and other countries where the Company does business. Based on current information, the Company believes that such other pending or threatened proceedings are likely to be resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.