XML 78 R31.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.4
Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments
Unconditional Purchase Obligations
As of December 31, 2022, purchase commitments for capital expenditures were $102.1 million, all of which is obligated within the next three years, with $94.1 million obligated within the next 12 months.
In Australia, the Company has generally secured the ability to transport coal through rail contracts and ownership interests in five east coast coal export terminals that are primarily funded through take-or-pay arrangements with terms ranging up to 20 years. In the U.S., the Company has entered into certain long-term coal export terminal agreements to secure export capacity through the Gulf Coast. As of December 31, 2022, these Australian and U.S. commitments under take-or-pay arrangements totaled $1.4 billion, of which approximately $103 million is obligated within the next year.
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 and Matters 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 alleged 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. 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. The defendants filed their reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition on August 23, 2021, which completed briefing. On March 7, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. As a result of this decision, only Plaintiffs’ allegations relating to the Company’s September 25, 2018 statements remained in the case. On May 13, 2022, the Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order.
On August 2, 2022, Peabody and Plaintiffs agreed to settle all claims brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s shares between April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019 in exchange for $4.6 million, to be paid by Peabody’s insurers. The parties further negotiated a definitive stipulation of settlement and related documents which do not contain any admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties and provide that the case be dismissed with prejudice, with mutual releases by all parties.
On October 13, 2022, the Court entered an Order of Preliminary Approval of the settlement agreement. On February 7, 2023, the Court entered an order of final approval of the settlement agreement thereby fully resolving the litigation.
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.
In light of the settlement agreement in the Securities Class Action, on September 7, 2022, the Court entered Stipulation and Order of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 419a)(1)(A)(ii) for the Phelps and Di Fusco matters; effectively closing the shareholder derivative lawsuits.
Metropolitan Mine Stormwater Discharge. Over the past two years, there has been significantly high rainfall in New South Wales, including unprecedented rain totals at the Metropolitan Mine site. While stormwater collected at the mine site is managed through two sedimentation dams, at times the heavy rainfall has presented challenges with managing the significant volumes of stormwater, as the surface water management infrastructure has not had sufficient capacity. As a result, on multiple occasions throughout 2021 and 2022 stormwater has been discharged from the mine site. Metropolitan Collieries Pty Ltd (MCPL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of PEC, removed accumulated material from the sedimentation dams to restore full site stormwater capacity by December 31, 2022 and has identified and is implementing additional controls for the management of sediment moving forward. Despite the measures undertaken by MCPL to manage and improve the situation, the Environment Protection Authority is currently undertaking an investigation in relation to the discharges of sediment laden water from the mine site and a review process of the Metropolitan Mine’s environmental protection license. The Environment Protection Authority is investigating potential offenses against the environmental protection legislation arising from the discharges.
Puerto Rico Climate Change Lawsuit. On November 22, 2022, the Municipalities of Puerto Rico filed a class action complaint for damages against several major energy fuel producers, including Peabody Energy. This lawsuit represents the latest in a series of lawsuits that have been brought in both state and federal court around the United States, generally seeking to impose liability on the energy fuel producers for the effects allegedly caused by climate change. Many of these lawsuits have been brought on behalf of governmental entities (counties, cities, and towns) by plaintiff law firms on a contingent fee arrangement. The causes of action in the Puerto Rico lawsuit include public and private nuisance, liability for failure to warn, consumer fraud, antitrust and claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. As of February 17, 2023, the Company has not been properly served with a complaint in the matter styled: The Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01550 (USDC D.P.R.).
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.
Claims, Litigation and Settlements Relating to Indemnities or Historical Operations
Patriot-Related Matters. In 2012, Patriot filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the U.S. Code (the Bankruptcy Code). In 2013, the Company entered into a definitive settlement agreement (2013 Agreement) with Patriot and the United Mine Workers of America, on behalf of itself, its represented Patriot employees and its represented Patriot retirees, to resolve all then-disputed issues related to Patriot’s bankruptcy. In May 2015, Patriot again filed voluntary petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and subsequently initiated a process to sell substantially all of its assets to qualified bidders. On October 9, 2015, Patriot’s bankruptcy court entered an order confirming Patriot’s plan of reorganization, which provided, among other things, for the sale of substantially all of Patriot’s assets to two different buyers.
Patriot had federal and state black lung occupational disease liabilities related to workers employed in periods prior to Patriot’s spin-off from the Company in 2007. Upon spin-off, Patriot indemnified the Company against any claim relating to these liabilities, which amounted to approximately $150 million at that time. The indemnification included any claim made by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) against the Company with respect to these obligations as a potentially liable operator under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. The 2013 Agreement included Patriot’s affirmance of indemnities provided in the spin-off agreements, including the indemnity relating to such black lung liabilities; however, Patriot rejected this indemnity in its May 2015 bankruptcy.
By statute, the Company had secondary liability for the black lung liabilities related to Patriot’s workers employed by former subsidiaries of the Company. The Company’s accounting for the black lung liabilities related to Patriot is based on an interpretation of applicable statutes. Management believes that inconsistencies exist among the applicable statutes, regulations promulgated under those statutes and the DOL’s interpretative guidance. The Company has sought clarification from the DOL regarding these inconsistencies. The amount of these liabilities could be reduced in the future. Whether the Company will ultimately be required to fund certain of those obligations in the future as a result of Patriot’s May 2015 bankruptcy remains uncertain. The amount of the liability, which was determined on an actuarial basis based on the best information available to the Company, was $82.3 million and $87.2 million at December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. The liability, which is classified as discontinued operations, is included in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets within “Accounts payable and accrued expenses” and “Other noncurrent liabilities.” In connection with the actuarial valuation, the Company recorded mark-to-market adjustments of $2.7 million to decrease the liability during the year ended December 31, 2022, $2.1 million to decrease the liability during the year ended December 31, 2021 and $4.2 million to increase the liability during the year ended December 31, 2020. While the Company has recorded a liability, it intends to review each claim on a case-by-case basis and contest liability estimates as appropriate. The amount of the Company’s recorded liability reflects only Patriot workers employed by former subsidiaries of the Company that are presently retired, disabled or otherwise not actively employed. The Company cannot reliably estimate the potential liabilities for Patriot’s workers employed by former subsidiaries of the Company that are presently active in the workforce because of the potential for such workers to continue to work for another coal operator that is a going concern.