18. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in litigation and various proceedings relating to environmental laws and regulations and toxic tort, product liability and other matters. Certain of these matters are discussed below. The ultimate resolution of these contingencies is subject to significant uncertainty and should the Company or its subsidiaries fail to prevail in any of these legal matters or should several of these legal matters be resolved against the Company or its subsidiaries in the same reporting period, these legal matters could, individually or in the aggregate, be material to the consolidated financial statements.

Legal Proceedings

Coal Tar Pitch Cases. Koppers Inc. is one of several defendants in lawsuits filed in two states in which the plaintiffs claim they suffered a variety of illnesses (including cancer) as a result of exposure to coal tar pitch sold by the defendants. There are 99 plaintiffs in 55 cases pending as of June 30, 2017 and as of December 31, 2016. As of June 30, 2017, there are a total of 54 cases pending in state court in Pennsylvania, and 1 case pending in state court in Tennessee.

The plaintiffs in all 55 pending cases seek to recover compensatory damages. Plaintiffs in 50 of those cases also seek to recover punitive damages. The plaintiffs in the 54 cases filed in Pennsylvania seek unspecified damages in excess of the court’s minimum jurisdictional limit. The plaintiff in the Tennessee state court case seeks damages of $15.0 million. The other defendants in these lawsuits vary from case to case and include companies such as Beazer East, Inc. (“Beazer East”), Honeywell International Inc., Graftech International Holdings, Dow Chemical Company, UCAR Carbon Company, Inc., and SGL Carbon Corporation. Discovery is proceeding in these cases. No trial dates have been set in any of these cases.

The Company has not provided a reserve for these lawsuits because, at this time, the Company cannot reasonably determine the probability of a loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. The timing of resolution of these cases cannot be reasonably determined. Although Koppers Inc. is vigorously defending these cases, an unfavorable resolution of these matters may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Gainesville. Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville, Florida from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East in 2010.

In November 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed by residential real property owners located in a neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other parties as defendants. Koppers Holdings Inc. was subsequently dismissed from the case by the district court. In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged that chemicals and contaminants from the Gainesville plant contaminated their properties, caused property damage (diminution in value) and placed residents and owners of the putative class properties at an elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the chemicals at issue. The plaintiffs sought a class comprised of all current property owners of single family residential properties with a polygon-shaped area extending approximately two miles from the former plant area (which area encompasses approximately 7,000 owners).

In September 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. A hearing on the plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and the parties’ motions relating to experts was held in January 2016. On March 20, 2017, the district court denied the motion for class certification and also granted the motion to strike several of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. Plaintiffs have sought permission to file a third amended complaint for five individual plaintiffs in the district court which is currently opposed by the Company. In July 2017, the district court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for permission to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs were permitted to add a count related to ultra-hazardous activities, but were denied the right to add counts related to public nuisance, medical monitoring and for equitable relief. The Company and the other defendants are preparing their answer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be reasonably determined. Although the Company is vigorously defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Environmental and Other Litigation Matters

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations and potential liabilities relating to the protection of the environment and human health and safety including, among other things, the cleanup of contaminated sites, the treatment, storage and disposal of wastes, the discharge of effluent into waterways, the emission of substances into the air and various health and safety matters. The Company’s subsidiaries expect to incur substantial costs for ongoing compliance with such laws and regulations. The Company’s subsidiaries may also face governmental or third-party claims, or otherwise incur costs, relating to cleanup of, or for injuries resulting from, contamination at sites associated with past and present operations. The Company accrues for environmental liabilities when a determination can be made that a liability is probable and reasonably estimable.

Environmental and Other Liabilities Retained or Assumed by Others. The Company’s subsidiaries have agreements with former owners of certain of their operating locations under which the former owners retained, assumed and/or agreed to indemnify such subsidiaries against certain environmental and other liabilities. The most significant of these agreements was entered into at Koppers Inc.’s formation on December 29, 1988 (the “Acquisition”). Under the related asset purchase agreement between Koppers Inc. and Beazer East, subject to certain limitations, Beazer East retained the responsibility for and agreed to indemnify Koppers Inc. against certain liabilities, damages, losses and costs, including, with certain limited exceptions, liabilities under and costs to comply with environmental laws to the extent attributable to acts or omissions occurring prior to the Acquisition and liabilities related to products sold by Beazer East prior to the Acquisition (the “Indemnity”). Beazer Limited, the parent company of Beazer East, unconditionally guaranteed Beazer East’s performance of the Indemnity pursuant to a guarantee (the “Guarantee”).

The Indemnity provides different mechanisms, subject to certain limitations, by which Beazer East is obligated to indemnify Koppers Inc. with regard to certain environmental, product and other liabilities and imposes certain conditions on Koppers Inc. before receiving such indemnification, including, in some cases, certain limitations regarding the time period as to which claims for indemnification can be brought. In July 2004, Koppers Inc. and Beazer East agreed to amend the environmental indemnification provisions of the December 29, 1988 asset purchase agreement to extend the indemnification period for pre-closing environmental liabilities through July 2019. As consideration for the amendment, Koppers Inc. paid Beazer East a total of $7.0 million and agreed to share toxic tort litigation defense costs arising from any sites acquired from Beazer East. The July 2004 amendment did not change the provisions of the Indemnity with respect to indemnification for non-environmental claims, such as product liability claims, which claims may continue to be asserted after July 2019.

Qualified expenditures under the Indemnity are not subject to a monetary limit. Qualified expenditures under the Indemnity include (i) environmental cleanup liabilities required by third parties, such as investigation, remediation and closure costs, relating to pre-December 29, 1988 (“Pre-Closing”) acts or omissions of Beazer East or its predecessors; (ii) environmental claims by third parties for personal injuries, property damages and natural resources damages relating to Pre-Closing acts or omissions of Beazer East or its predecessors; (iii) punitive damages for the acts or omissions of Beazer East and its predecessors without regard to the date of the alleged conduct and (iv) product liability claims for products sold by Beazer East or its predecessors without regard to the date of the alleged conduct. If the third party claims described in sections (i) and (ii) above are not made by July 2019, Beazer East will not be required to pay the costs arising from such claims under the Indemnity. However, with respect to any such claims which are made by July 2019, Beazer East will continue to be responsible for such claims under the Indemnity beyond July 2019. The Indemnity provides for the resolution of issues between Koppers Inc. and Beazer East by an arbitrator on an expedited basis upon the request of either party. The arbitrator could be asked, among other things, to make a determination regarding the allocation of environmental responsibilities between Koppers Inc. and Beazer East. Arbitration decisions under the Indemnity are final and binding on the parties.

Contamination has been identified at most manufacturing and other sites of the Company’s subsidiaries. One site currently owned and operated by Koppers Inc. in the United States is listed on the National Priorities List promulgated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”). Currently, at the properties acquired from Beazer East (which includes the National Priorities List site and all but one of the sites permitted under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”)), a significant portion of all investigative, cleanup and closure activities are being conducted and paid for by Beazer East pursuant to the terms of the Indemnity. In addition, other of Koppers Inc.’s sites are or have been operated under RCRA and various other environmental permits, and remedial and closure activities are being conducted at some of these sites.

To date, the parties that retained, assumed and/or agreed to indemnify the Company against the liabilities referred to above, including Beazer East, have performed their obligations in all material respects. The Company believes that, for the last three years ended December 31, 2016, amounts paid by Beazer East as a result of its environmental remediation obligations under the Indemnity have averaged, in total, approximately $10 million per year. Periodically, issues have arisen between Koppers Inc. and Beazer East and/or other indemnitors that have been resolved without arbitration. Koppers Inc. and Beazer East engage in discussions from time to time that involve, among other things, the allocation of environmental costs related to certain operating and closed facilities.

If for any reason (including disputed coverage or financial incapability) one or more of such parties fail to perform their obligations and the Company or its subsidiaries are held liable for or otherwise required to pay all or part of such liabilities without reimbursement, the imposition of such liabilities on the Company or its subsidiaries could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. Furthermore, the Company could be required to record a contingent liability on its balance sheet with respect to such matters, which could result in a negative impact to the Company’s business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Domestic Environmental Matters. Koppers Inc. has been named as one of the potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) at the Portland Harbor CERCLA site located on the Willamette River in Oregon. Koppers Inc. operated a coal tar pitch terminal near the site. Koppers Inc. has responded to an Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) information request and has executed a PRP agreement which outlines the process to develop an allocation of past and future costs among more than 80 parties to the site. Koppers Inc. believes it is a de minimus contributor at the site. Additionally, two separate natural resources damages assessments (“NRDA”) are being conducted by local trustee groups. The NRDA is intended to identify further information necessary to estimate liabilities for settlements of national resource damages (“NRD”) claims. Koppers Inc. may also incur liabilities under the NRD process and has entered into a separate process to develop an allocation of NRDA costs.

The EPA issued its Record of Decision (“ROD”) in January 2017 for the Portland Harbor CERCLA site. The selected remedy includes a combination of sediment removal, capping, enhanced and monitored natural recovery and riverbank improvements. The ROD does not determine who is responsible for remediation costs. The net present value and undiscounted costs of the selected remedy as estimated in the ROD are approximately $1.1 billion and $1.7 billion, respectively. Responsibility for implementing and funding that work will be decided in the separate allocation process.

In September 2009, Koppers Inc. received a general notice letter notifying it that it may be a PRP at the Newark Bay CERCLA site. In January 2010, Koppers Inc. submitted a response to the general notice letter asserting that Koppers Inc. is a de minimus party at this site.

The Company has accrued the estimated costs of participating in the PRP group at the Portland Harbor and Newark Bay CERCLA sites and estimated de minimis settlement amounts at the sites totaling $2.1 million at June 30, 2017. The actual cost could be materially higher as there has not been a determination of how those costs will be allocated among the PRPs at the sites. Accordingly, an unfavorable resolution of these matters may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

In connection with Koppers Inc.’s acquisition of Osmose, Inc., there are two plant sites in the United States where the Company has recorded an environmental remediation liability for soil and groundwater contamination which occurred prior to the acquisition. As of June 30, 2017, the Company’s estimated environmental remediation liability for these acquired sites totals $4.9 million.

Foreign Environmental Matters. In connection with Koppers Inc.’s acquisition of Osmose, Inc., there are two plant sites located in the United Kingdom and Australia where the Company has recorded an environmental remediation liability for soil and groundwater contamination which occurred prior to the acquisition. As of June 30, 2017, the Company’s estimated environmental remediation liability for these acquired sites totals $3.1 million. Osmose Holdings, Inc. has provided an indemnity of up to $5.0 million for certain environmental response costs incurred prior to August 15, 2017 (the “Osmose Indemnity”). As of June 30, 2017, total recoveries under the Osmose Indemnity total $4.6 million.

In December 2011, the Company ceased manufacturing operations at its Continental Carbon facility located in Kurnell, Australia. The Company has accrued its expected cost of site remediation resulting from the closure of $3.1 million as of June 30, 2017.

Environmental Reserves Rollforward. The following table reflects changes in the accrued liability for environmental matters, of which $6.5 million and $5.2 million are classified as current liabilities at June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively:

	Period ended
	June 30, 2017			December 31, 2016
(Dollars in millions)
Balance at beginning of year	$	12.9		$	19.8
Expense		2.4			1.5
Reversal of reserves		(0.3	)		(1.0	)
Cash expenditures		(1.2	)		(6.3	)
Disposal		0.0			(0.3	)
Currency translation		0.3			(0.8	)
Balance at end of period	$	14.1		$	12.9