Commitments and Contingencies

We and certain of our subsidiaries are subject to numerous contingencies arising in the ordinary course of business. For a discussion of our tax contingencies, see Note 8. Tax Matters.


A.	Legal Proceedings

Our non-tax contingencies include, among others, the following:


•	Product liability and other product-related litigation, which can include injury, consumer, off-label promotion, antitrust and breach of contract claims.


•	Commercial and other matters, which can include product-pricing claims and environmental claims and proceedings.


•	Patent litigation, which typically involves challenges to the coverage and/or validity of our patents or those of third parties on various products or processes.


•	Government investigations, which can involve regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and in other countries.

Certain of these contingencies could result in losses, including damages, fines and/or civil penalties, and/or criminal charges, which could be substantial.

We believe that we have strong defenses in these types of matters, but litigation is inherently unpredictable and excessive verdicts do occur. We do not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of certain matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or cash flows in the period in which the amounts are paid.

We have accrued for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Substantially all of these contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss can be complex. Consequently, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued. Our assessments are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but the assessment process relies on estimates and assumptions that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause us to change those estimates and assumptions.

Amounts recorded for legal and environmental contingencies can result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties and can rely on estimates and assumptions.

The principal matters to which we are a party are discussed below. In determining whether a pending matter is significant for financial reporting and disclosure purposes, we consider both quantitative and qualitative factors in order to assess materiality, such as, among other things, the amount of damages and the nature of any other relief sought in the proceeding, if such damages and other relief are specified; our view of the merits of the claims and of the strength of our defenses; whether the action purports to be a class action and our view of the likelihood that a class will be certified by the court; the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending; any experience that we or, to our knowledge, other companies have had in similar proceedings; whether disclosure of the action would be important to a reader of our financial statements, including whether disclosure might change a reader’s judgment about our financial statements in light of all of the information about the company that is available to the reader; the potential impact of the proceeding on our reputation; and the extent of public interest in the matter. In addition, with respect to patent matters, we consider, among other things, the financial significance of the product protected by the patent.

Ulianopolis, Brazil

In February 2012, the Municipality of Ulianopolis (State of Para, Brazil) filed a complaint against Fort Dodge Saúde Animal Ltda. (FDSAL), a Zoetis entity, and five other large companies alleging that waste sent to a local waste incineration facility for destruction, but that was not ultimately destroyed as the facility lost its operating permit, caused environmental impacts requiring cleanup.

The Municipality is seeking recovery of cleanup costs purportedly related to FDSAL's share of all waste accumulated at the incineration facility awaiting destruction, and compensatory damages to be allocated among the six defendants. We believe we have strong arguments against the claim, including defense strategies against any claim of joint and several liability.

At the request of the Municipal prosecutor, in April 2012, the lawsuit was suspended for one year. Since that time, the prosecutor has initiated investigations into the Municipality's actions in the matter as well as the efforts undertaken by the six defendants to remove and dispose of their individual waste from the incineration facility. On October 3, 2014, the Municipal prosecutor announced that the investigation remained ongoing and outlined the terms of a proposed Term of Reference (a document that establishes the minimum elements to be addressed in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment), under which the companies would be liable to withdraw the waste and remediate the area. On March 5, 2015, we presented our response to the prosecutor’s proposed Term of Reference, arguing that the proposed terms were overly general in nature and expressing our interest in discussing alternatives to address the matter. The prosecutor agreed to consider our request to engage a technical consultant to conduct an environmental diagnostic of the contaminated area. On May 29, 2015, we, in conjunction with the other defendant companies, submitted a draft cooperation agreement to the prosecutor, which outlined the proposed terms and conditions for the engagement of a technical consultant to conduct the environmental diagnostic. On August 19, 2016, the parties and the prosecutor agreed to engage the services of a third-party consultant to conduct a limited environmental assessment of the site. The site assessment was conducted during June 2017, and a written report summarizing the results of the assessment was provided to the parties and the prosecutor in November 2017. The report noted that waste is still present on the site and that further environmental assessments are needed before a plan to manage that remaining waste can be prepared. We have not received any further communication from the prosecutor in response to the report.

Lascadoil Contamination in Animal Feed

An investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Michigan Department of Agriculture is ongoing to determine how lascadoil, oil for industrial use, made its way into the feed supply of certain turkey and hog feed mills in Michigan. The contaminated feed is believed to have caused the deaths of approximately 50,000 turkeys and the contamination (but not death) of at least 20,000 hogs in August 2014. While it remains an open question as to how the lascadoil made its way into the animal feed, the allegations are that lascadoil intended to be sold for reuse as biofuel was inadvertently sold to producers of soy oil, who in turn, unknowingly sold the contaminated soy oil to fat recycling vendors, who then sold the contaminated soy oil to feed mills for use in animal feed. Indeed, related to the FDA investigation, Shur-Green Farms LLC, a producer of soy oil, recalled certain batches of soy oil allegedly contaminated with lascadoil on October 13, 2014.

During the course of its investigation, the FDA identified the process used to manufacture Zoetis’ Avatec® (lasalocid sodium) and Bovatec® (lasalocid sodium) products as one possible source of the lascadoil, since lascadoil contains small amounts of lasalocid, the active ingredient found in both products. Zoetis has historically sold any and all industrial lascadoil byproduct to an environmental company specializing in waste disposal. The environmental company is contractually obligated to incinerate the lascadoil or resell it for use in biofuel. Under the terms of the agreement, the environmental company is expressly prohibited from reselling the lascadoil to be used as a component in food. The FDA inspected the Zoetis site where Avatec and Bovatec are manufactured, and found no evidence that Zoetis was involved in the contamination of the animal feed.

On March 10, 2015, plaintiffs Restaurant Recycling, LLC (Restaurant Recycling) and Superior Feed Ingredients, LLC (Superior), both of whom are in the fat recycling business, filed a complaint in the Seventeenth Circuit Court for the State of Michigan against Shur-Green Farms alleging negligence and breach of warranty claims arising from their purchase of soy oil allegedly contaminated with lascadoil. Plaintiffs resold the allegedly contaminated soy oil to turkey feed mills for use in feed ingredient. Plaintiffs also named Zoetis as a defendant in the complaint alleging that Zoetis failed to properly manufacture its products and breached an implied warranty that the soy oil was fit for use at turkey and hog mills. Zoetis was served with the complaint on June 3, 2015, and we filed our answer, denying all allegations, on July 15, 2015. On August 10, 2015, several of the turkey feed mills filed a joint complaint against Restaurant Recycling, Superior, Shur-Green Farms and others, alleging claims for negligence, misrepresentation, and breach of warranty, arising out of their alleged purchase and use of the contaminated soy oil. The complaint raises only one count against Zoetis for negligence. We filed an answer to the complaint on November 2, 2015, denying the allegation. On May 16, 2016, two additional turkey producers filed a complaint in the Seventeenth Circuit Court for the State of Michigan against the company, Restaurant Recycling, Superior, Shur-Green Farms and others, alleging claims for negligence and breach of warranties. We filed an answer to the complaint on June 20, 2016, denying the allegations. The Court has consolidated all three cases in Michigan for purposes of discovery and disposition. On July 28, 2017, we filed a motion for summary disposition on the grounds that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that Zoetis is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On October 19, 2017, the Court granted our motion and dismissed all claims against Zoetis. On October 31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed motions for reconsideration of the Court’s decision granting summary disposition. The Court denied all such motions on December 6, 2017, for the same reasons cited in the Court’s original decision. On December 27, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a request with the Michigan Court of Appeals seeking an interlocutory (or interim) appeal of the lower Court’s decision, which we opposed on January 17, 2018. On July 5, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs’ request for an interlocutory appeal. The case has been remanded back to the lower Court, where it will proceed to trial (unless settled) without Zoetis. The plaintiffs will have the option to seek an appeal of the lower Court’s decision granting Zoetis’ motion for summary disposition after the final adjudication of the case.

Other Matters

The European Commission published a decision on alleged competition law infringements by several human health pharmaceutical companies on June 19, 2013. One of the involved legal entities is Alpharma LLC (previously having the name Zoetis Products LLC). Alpharma LLC’s involvement is solely related to its human health activities prior to Pfizer's acquisition of King/Alpharma. Zoetis paid a fine in the amount of Euro 11 million (approximately $14 million) and was reimbursed in full by Pfizer in accordance with the Global Separation Agreement between Pfizer and Zoetis, which provides that Pfizer is obligated to indemnify Zoetis for any liabilities arising out of claims not related to its animal health assets. We filed an appeal of the decision on September 6, 2013 to the General Court of the European Union. On September 8, 2016, the General Court upheld the decision of the European Commission. On November 25, 2016, we filed an appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union. On January 24, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on the merits of the appeal, and we now await the Court’s decision.


B.	Guarantees and Indemnifications

In the ordinary course of business and in connection with the sale of assets and businesses, we indemnify our counterparties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with the transaction or related to activities prior to the transaction. These indemnifications typically pertain to environmental, tax, employee and/or product-related matters and patent-infringement claims. If the indemnified party were to make a successful claim pursuant to the terms of the indemnification, we would be required to reimburse the loss. These indemnifications are generally subject to threshold amounts, specified claim periods and other restrictions and limitations. Historically, we have not paid significant amounts under these provisions and, as of December 31, 2018, recorded amounts for the estimated fair value of these indemnifications were not significant.

C. Purchase Commitments

As of December 31, 2018, we have agreements totaling $434 million to purchase goods and services that are enforceable and legally binding and include amounts relating to contract manufacturing, information technology services and potential milestone payments deemed reasonably likely to occur.

D. Commitments under Operating Leases

We have facilities, vehicles and office equipment under various non-cancellable operating leases with third parties. Total rent expense, net of sublease rental income, was approximately $45 million in 2018, $27 million in 2017 and $25 million in 2016.

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancellable operating leases as of December 31, 2018, follow:



											After
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)	2019		2020		2021		2022		2023		2023		Total
Maturities	$	38	$	30	$	24	$	21	$	15	$	45	$	173