Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

As of June 30, 2021, purchase commitments for capital expenditures were $28.1 million, all of which is obligated within the next four years, with $20.6 million obligated within the next 12 months.

There were no other material changes to the Company’s commitments from the information provided in Note 24. “Commitments and Contingencies” to the consolidated financial statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020.

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 Continuing Operations

Securities Class Action. On September 28, 2020, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System brought a lawsuit, styled In Re Peabody Energy Corporation Securities Litigation No. 1:20-cv-08024 (PKC), against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court) on behalf of a putative class of shareholders (Plaintiffs) who held Company stock between April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (Securities Class Action). Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to safety practices at the Company’s North Goonyella Mine and the events leading up to a fire at the mine, and that, after a September 28, 2018 fire at the mine, made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of the Company’s plan to restart the mine after the fire. The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations. On January 12, 2021, the Court appointed the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff. On January 25, 2021, the Court entered a scheduling order for this matter. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 19, 2021. The defendants filed a pre-motion letter on April 30, 2021 while the Plaintiffs’ response letter was filed on May 6, 2021. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on June 7, 2021. The Plaintiffs’ opposition brief to the motion to dismiss was filed on July 22, 2021. Additional briefings at this phase of litigation are anticipated to be completed by the conclusion of August 2021.

Derivative Actions. On December 22, 2020, a plaintiff (Phelps), putatively on behalf of the Company, brought a shareholder derivative lawsuit, styled Phelps v. Samantha Algaze, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01747-UNA (D. Del. filed Dec. 22, 2020), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against certain directors and former officers of the Company, as defendants. The Company was also named as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff did not make a demand on the Company’s board before instituting the lawsuit and alleges such demand would have been futile. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose adverse facts relating to the safety practices at the Company’s North Goonyella Mine, thereby leading to a September 28, 2018 fire, and allegedly failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of reopening the mine. The derivative complaint alleges (i) contribution against certain current and former officers for securities fraud based on the Securities Class Action, and against all defendants, (ii) breach of fiduciary duties, (iii) waste of corporate assets for causing the Company to incur legal liability and (iv) unjust enrichment.

On February 10, 2021, a second plaintiff (Di Fusco), putatively on behalf of the Company, filed a similar shareholder derivative lawsuit, styled Di Fusco v. Glenn Kellow, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00183-UNA (D. Del. filed Feb. 10, 2021), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the directors and current and former officers of the Company, as defendants. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. This suit makes claims similar to those made in the Phelps matter, but asserts a claim for alleged misstatements in a proxy statement under Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. In late March 2021, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to consolidate and stay both derivative actions for judicial efficiency and cost until the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. The Company also believes that the derivative actions lack merit and intended to vigorously defend against the allegations.

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. The Company reassesses the probability and estimability of contingent losses as new information becomes available.