Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase and Capital Commitments — Includes obligations for purchase requirements of process chemicals, supplies, utilities and services entered into in the ordinary course of business. At September 30, 2021, purchase commitments were $90 million for 2021, $98 million for 2022, $70 million for 2023, $59 million for 2024, $47 million for 2025, and $143 million thereafter.

Letters of Credit—At September 30, 2021, we had outstanding letters of credit and bank guarantees of $53 million, of which $23 million were letters of credit and $30 million were bank guarantees. Amounts for performance bonds were not material.

Environmental Matters— It is our policy to record appropriate liabilities for environmental matters when remedial efforts are probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. Such liabilities are based on our best estimate of the undiscounted future costs required to complete the remedial work. The recorded liabilities are adjusted periodically as remediation efforts progress or as additional technical, regulatory or legal information becomes available. Given the uncertainties regarding the status of laws, regulations, enforcement policies, the impact of other potentially responsible parties, technology and information related to individual sites, we do not believe it is possible to develop an estimate of the range of reasonably possible environmental loss in excess of our recorded liabilities. We expect to fund expenditures for these matters from operating cash flows. The timing of cash expenditures depends principally on the timing of remedial investigations and feasibility studies, regulatory approval of cleanup projects, remedial techniques to be utilized and agreements with other parties.  Included in these environmental matters is the following:

Hawkins Point Plant.  Residual waste mud, known as Batch Attack Mud, and a spent sulfuric waste stream were deposited in an onsite repository (the “Batch Attack Lagoon”) at a former TiO2 manufacturing site, Hawkins Point Plant in Baltimore, Maryland, operated by Cristal USA, Inc. from 1954 until 2011.  We assumed responsibility for remediation of the Hawkins Point Plant when we acquired the TiO2 business of Cristal in April 2019.  In 1984, a predecessor of Cristal and the Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) entered into a consent decree (the “Consent Decree”) to address the Batch Attack Lagoon.  The Consent Decree required that Cristal close the Batch Attack Lagoon when the Hawkins Point Plant ceased operations.  In addition, we are investigating whether hazardous substances are migrating from the Batch Attack Lagoon.   A provision of $60 million has been made in our financial statements for the Hawkins Point Plant consistent with the accounting policy described above. We are in discussions with the MDE regarding a new consent decree to address both the Batch Attack Lagoon as well as other environmental contamination issues associated with the Hawkins Point Plant.

Other Matters— We are subject to a number of other lawsuits, investigations and disputes (some of which involve substantial amounts claimed) arising out of the conduct of our business, including matters relating to commercial transactions, prior acquisitions and divestitures, including our acquisition of Cristal, employee benefit plans, intellectual property, and environmental, health and safety matters. We recognize a liability for any contingency that is probable of occurrence and reasonably estimable. We continually assess the likelihood of adverse judgments of outcomes in these matters, as well as potential ranges of possible losses (taking into consideration any insurance recoveries), based on a careful analysis of each matter with the assistance of outside legal counsel and, if applicable, other experts. Included in these other matters are the following:

Venator Materials plc v. Tronox Limited.  In May 2019, Venator Materials plc (“Venator”) filed an action in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware alleging among other things that we owed Venator a $75 million “Break Fee” pursuant to the terms of a preliminary agreement dated July 14, 2018 (the “Exclusivity Agreement”). The Exclusivity Agreement required, among other things, Tronox and Venator to use their respective best efforts to negotiate a definitive agreement to sell the entirety of the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited’s (“Cristal’s”) North American operations to Venator if a divestiture of all or a substantial part of these operations were required to secure the approval of the Federal Trade Commission for us to complete our acquisition of Cristal’s TiO2 business. In June 2019, we denied Venator's claims and counterclaimed against Venator seeking to recover $400 million in damages from Venator that we suffered as a result of Venator’s breaches of the Exclusivity Agreement. Specifically, we alleged, among other things, that Venator’s failure to use best efforts constituted a material breach of the Exclusivity Agreement and directly resulted in and caused us to sell Cristal’s North American operations to an alternative buyer for $701 million, $400 million less than the price Venator had agreed to in the Exclusivity Agreement. Though we believe that our interpretation of the Exclusivity Agreement is correct, there can be no assurance that we will prevail in litigation.

Western Australia Stamp Duty Matter. In May 2018, we lodged a pre-transaction determination request for a stamp duty exemption with the Western Australia Office of State Revenue (the “WA OSR”) in connection with our re-domicile transaction (the “Re-Domicile Transaction”) which was subsequently granted by the WA OSR in June 2018 on a preliminary basis. Immediately following the consummation of the Re-Domicile Transaction, we filed a confirmation request for the stamp duty exemption with the WA OSR. Following this confirmation request, we exchanged numerous communications with the WA OSR addressing questions raised and stating our position. In July 2021, the WA OSR informed us that they have reviewed their technical position on the applicability of the stamp duty exemption and have determined that such an exemption is disallowed based upon minor technicalities regarding the application of the governing set of rules. While the Company believe the rules were appropriately applied and will be successful in utilizing the exemption allowed, if an unfavorable ruling ultimately prevails it could result in a material charge to the financial statements. The Company is currently assessing its options with respect to this matter.