CONTINGENCIES, ENVIRONMENTAL AND LEGAL MATTERS

Asset Retirement Obligations

The Company has recognized AROs for properties where it can make a reasonable estimate of the future expenditures necessary to satisfy the related obligations. The Company considers identified legally-enforceable obligations, estimated settlement dates and appropriate discount and inflation rates in calculating the fair value of its AROs.

The Company's ARO liability were included in "Accrued expenses and other current liabilities" and "Other long-term liabilities" in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The balances and the related changes were as follows:



(amounts in millions)	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014
AROs, beginning of period	$	17.5		$	18.5		$	4.8
Acquisitions	2.7			0.4			13.2
Additional obligations incurred	—			—			0.5
Accretion expense	1.2			1.0			0.7
Remeasurements	—			(0.2		)	—
Payments	(1.3		)	(0.4		)	(0.2		)
Foreign currency translation	(0.3		)	(1.8		)	(0.5		)
AROs, end of period	$	19.8		$	17.5		$	18.5

Environmental Liabilities

The Company is involved in various claims relating to environmental matters at a number of current and former plant sites and waste management sites. The Company engages or participates in remedial and other environmental compliance activities at certain of these sites. At other sites, it has been named as a “potential responsible party” (PRP) pursuant to the federal Superfund Act and/or state Superfund laws comparable to the federal law for site remediation. The Company analyzes each individual site, considering the number of parties involved, the level of its potential liability or contribution relating to the other parties, the nature and magnitude of the hazardous wastes involved, the method and extent of remediation, the potential insurance coverage, the estimated legal and consulting expense with respect to each site and the time period over which any costs would likely be incurred. Based on the above analysis, the Company estimates the clean-up costs and related claims for each site. The estimates are based in part on discussions with other PRPs, governmental agencies and engineering firms.

The Company accrues for environmental matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated based on current laws and existing technologies. The accruals are adjusted periodically as assessment and remediation efforts progress or as additional technical or legal information becomes available. While uncertainty exists with respect to the amount and timing of its ultimate environmental liabilities, the Company does not currently anticipate any material losses in excess of the amount recorded. However, it is possible that new information about these sites, such as results of investigations, could make it necessary for the Company to reassess its potential exposure related to these environmental matters.

The Company's environmental liability is included in "Accrued expenses and other current liabilities" and "Other long-term liabilities" in the Consolidated Balance Sheets, and totaled $32.6 million and $25.7 million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, primarily in connection with environmental remediation, clean-up costs, and monitoring of sites that were either closed or disposed of in prior years by Alent, which the Company acquired in December 2015. As of the date hereof, management does not believe it is possible to develop an estimate of the range of reasonably possible environmental loss in excess of the Company's recorded liabilities, and is unable to ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings in the normal course of its business. The Company believes that the resolution of these claims, to the extent not covered by insurance, will not individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Company's accruals for its outstanding legal proceedings are included in "Accrued expenses and other current liabilities" in the Consolidated Balance Sheets, and totaled $3.7 million and $6.5 million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Product liability and/or personal injury claims for, or relating to, products the Company sells under its Agricultural Solutions segment are complex in nature and have outcomes that are difficult to predict. Since these products are used in the food chain on a global basis, any such product liability or personal injury claim could lead to litigation in multiple jurisdictions. In September 2014, Agricola Colonet, SA de CV filed a complaint with the 1st Civil Court in San Quintin (Baja California) where it alleged that certain Arysta products purchased from a retail distributor in Mexico were contaminated, requiring treated crops to be destroyed. Agricola Colonet, SA de CV is seeking compensation of approximately MXN 196 million ($9.5 million, based on the MXN/USD exchange rate of 0.0482 on December 31, 2016). A related complaint was filed in June 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by Fresh Pac International, Inc., naming the Company as a defendant. In the complaint, Fresh Pac International Inc. claims to be a distributor of produce for Agricola Colonet, SA de CV and seeks in excess of $6.0 million in damages allegedly sustained in connection with the events that appear to form the basis of the claim by Agricola Colonet SA de CV. The Company believes that it has adequate defenses and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Under its risk management policies, the Company maintains certain insurance policies under which such claims may be covered.

In June 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the District Court for the City of Ulianópolis in the State of Pará, Brazil by a private individual against Arysta LifeScience do Brasil Industria Química e Agropecuária Ltda, or Arysta Brazil, and 25 other defendants, and in November 2011, a claim was filed, also in the District Court for the City of Ulianópolis in the State of Pará, Brazil, against Arysta Brazil and five other defendants by the city of Ulianópolis, in each case in connection with materials sent by Arysta Brazil and others to an incineration site owned and operated by an unaffiliated third-party in the state of Pará, Brazil. Arysta Brazil was summoned and has filed its answer in connection with both cases. Proceedings have been suspended indefinitely in order to allow the Pará State Attorney to conduct civil inquiries to determine the extent of contamination and the appropriate remediation, and to identify potentially responsible parties. Damages sought in the private lawsuit include a penalty of BRL 50.0 million ($15.4 million, based on the BRL/USD exchange rate of 0.3071 on December 31, 2016), plus interest and the cost of remediation. The cost of remediation in the case brought by the city of Ulianopolis was previously estimated by the city to be BRL 70.9 million ($21.8 million, based on the BRL/USD exchange rate of 0.3071 on December 31, 2016). In addition, 29 former employees of the incineration facility have brought actions in the Labor Court of Paragominas in the State of Pará, Brazil naming 80 defendants, including Arysta Brazil, seeking compensation in an aggregate amount of BRL 387 million ($118.7 million, based on the BRL/USD exchange rate of 0.3071 on December 31, 2016) for health problems allegedly contracted as a result of their employment at the incineration site.

From time to time, in the ordinary course of business, the Company contests tax assessments received by its subsidiaries in various jurisdictions. Our contested tax assessments have been most prevalent in Brazil, where the tax regime is complex, and the administrative and judicial procedures for resolving disputed tax assessments are expensive and time-consuming. In addition, short of simply paying the entire amount demanded, including penalties, interest, and attorney’s fees, it is not possible to settle disputed tax assessments other than by submission for inclusion in formal tax amnesty programs announced by the Brazilian federal or state governments from time to time at irregular intervals. The terms of such amnesty programs vary, but generally offer the possibility of reduced interest and penalties. Historically, Arysta has submitted selected contested tax matters for inclusion in such amnesty programs in Brazil, when it appeared prudent to management to do so. The Company is currently contesting several tax assessments at various stages of the applicable administrative and judicial processes, with a combined amount at issue, including interest and penalties, of approximately BRL 83.1 million ($25.5 million, based on the BRL/USD exchange rate of 0.3071 on December 31, 2016). Because tax matters in Brazil historically take many years to resolve, it is very difficult to estimate when these matters will be finally resolved. Based on management's judgments, the Company does not expect it will incur a material loss in excess of accrued liabilities.

In July 2014, a federal court jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut found in favor of MacDermid Printing Solutions LLC in litigation against Cortron, Inc. The court entered a judgment in the amount of approximately $64.7 million. Cortron, Inc. appealed the verdict, and in August 2016 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in which it reversed the District Court’s verdict with respect to certain claims, affirmed with respect to other claims, and remanded to the District Court to recalculate the damages payable to MacDermid Printing Solutions LLC. Accordingly, the amount of the ultimate judgment is subject to further proceedings in the District Court and is, therefore, uncertain. All proceeds from this litigation are subject to the pending litigation provisions of the Business Combination Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of October 10, 2013.

In September 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey rendered a summary judgment in favor of MacDermid related to a patent litigation with E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. The Court issued summary judgment rulings in favor of MacDermid finding certain E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company’s patents invalid and not infringed. These rulings summarily found against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company on all of the patent claims asserted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in this lawsuit. The ruling, however, leaves the counterclaims made by MacDermid against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in place. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company appealed the summary judgment, and in August 2016 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment rulings. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company petitioned the Court of Appeals for a review of the decision en banc, which petition was denied. A trial date for MacDermid’s counterclaims against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company has not yet been set. All proceeds from this litigation are subject to the pending litigation provisions of the Business Combination Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of October 10, 2013.

In February 2015, MacDermid, as plaintiff, settled a litigation with Cookson Group plc, Enthone Inc., Cookson Electronics and David North, as defendants, for $25.0 million. The litigation related to certain corporate activities that occurred between MacDermid and the defendants in 2006 and 2007. On April 3, 2015, the Company received part of the settlement in the amount of $16.0 million and placed the remainder, net of legal costs, into escrow for future distribution in accordance with the pending litigation provisions of the Business Combination Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of October 10, 2013.

In March 2016, a class action lawsuit entitled Dillard v. Platform Specialty Products Corporation, et al. was filed against Platform and certain of its former and current executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging material false and misleading statements relating to our business, operational and compliance policies in light of certain past business practices of Arysta's West Africa business, as disclosed herein and in the 2015 Annual Report. In June 2016, the Court appointed joint lead plaintiffs, and in July 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with an expanded class period but stating substantially similar claims to those contained in the original complaint. In September 2016, Platform filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. On December 7, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss. On December 14, 2016, the parties submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal, and on December 16, 2016, the Court issued an order closing the case.