Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Guarantees and Letters of Credit The Company has various bank guarantees, letters of credit and surety bonds which are used to support its ongoing business operations, satisfy governmental requirements associated with pending litigation in various jurisdictions and the payment of customs duties. As of December 31, 2023, the Company had a total capacity of approximately $229 million of bank guarantees, commercial guarantees, standby letters of credit and surety bonds with various financial institutions. Included in the above aggregate amount was a total of approximately $11 million for other assessments in Brazil for various income tax and indirect tax disputes related to fiscal years 1998-2011. There was a total of approximately $61 million outstanding under the bank guarantees, standby letters of credit and commercial guarantees as of December 31, 2023. In order to challenge the assessments in these cases in Brazil, the Company has been required to, and has separately pledged assets, principally property, plant and equipment, to cover assessments in the amount of approximately $8 million as of December 31, 2023. Lines of Credit The Company has various lines of credit which are available to support its ongoing business operations. As of December 31, 2023, the Company had a total capacity of approximately $1.848 billion of lines of credit with various financial institutions, in addition to the $1.548 billion of capacity under the Revolving Credit Facility. Pursuant to these lines of credit as of December 31, 2023, the total drawdowns were not material. Litigation The Company assesses contingencies related to litigation and/or other matters to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss. A loss contingency is accrued in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable and unfavorable resolutions could occur, assessing contingencies is highly sensitive and requires judgments about future events. On at least a quarterly basis, the Company reviews contingencies related to litigation to determine the adequacy of accruals. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates and further events may require the Company to increase or decrease the amounts it has accrued on any matter. Periodically, the Company assesses its insurance coverage for all known claims, where applicable, taking into account aggregate coverage by occurrence, limits of coverage, self-insured retentions and deductibles, historical claims experience and claims experience with its insurance carriers. The liabilities are recorded at management’s best estimate of the probable outcome of the lawsuits and claims, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the individual matters as well as past experience on similar matters. At each balance sheet date, the key issues that management assesses are whether it is probable that a loss as to asserted or unasserted claims has been incurred and if so, whether the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company records the expected liability with respect to claims in Other liabilities and expected recoveries from its insurance carriers in Other assets. The Company recognizes a receivable when it believes that realization of the insurance receivable is probable under the terms of the insurance policies and its payment experience to date. Litigation Matters On August 12, 2019, Marc Jansen filed a putative securities class action against IFF, its then Chairman and CEO, and its then-CFO, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was filed after IFF disclosed that preliminary results of investigations indicated that Frutarom businesses operating principally in Russia and Ukraine had made improper payments to representatives of customers. On March 16, 2020, an amended complaint was filed, which added Frutarom and certain former officers of Frutarom as defendants. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements or omissions concerning IFF’s acquisition of Frutarom, the integration of the two companies, and the companies’ financial reporting and results. The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and under the Israeli Securities Act-1968, against all defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual defendants, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF securities on the New York Stock Exchange between May 7, 2018 and August 12, 2019 and persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF securities on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between October 9, 2018 and August 12, 2019. The amended complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses. IFF, its officers, and Frutarom filed a motion to dismiss the case on June 26, 2020, which was granted on March 30, 2021. On April 28, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Lead plaintiffs are pursuing the appeal only against Frutarom and certain former officers of Frutarom. The parties have submitted their briefs to the Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit held oral argument on February 10, 2022. On September 30, 2022, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims. On October 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, which the Second Circuit denied on January 4, 2023. Plaintiffs did not seek review in the United States Supreme Court. The matter is therefore fully resolved in defendants’ favor. Two motions to approve securities class actions were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, in August 2019, similarly alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements largely in connection with IFF’s acquisition of Frutarom and the above-mentioned improper payments. One motion (“Borg”) asserts claims under the U.S. federal securities laws against IFF, its former Chairman and CEO, and its former CFO. On November 8, 2020, IFF and its officers filed their response to the Borg motion. On April 20, 2021, Mr. Borg filed a motion to stay the proceeding pending an appellate decision in the U.S. proceeding. On June 15, 2021, August 11, 2021, November 9, 2021, January 9, 2022, April 7, 2022 and July 10, 2022, the U.S. lead plaintiffs filed update notices with the Israeli court regarding the appeal in the U.S. proceeding. On June 12, 2023, the petitioner filed a withdrawal motion, which the court then granted. The Borg case is now dismissed. The other motion (“Oman”) (following an initial amendment) asserted claims under the Israeli Securities Act-1968 against IFF, its former Chairman and CEO, and its former CFO, and against Frutarom and certain former Frutarom officers and directors, as well as claims under the Israeli Companies Act-1999 against certain former Frutarom officers and directors. On February 17, 2021, the court granted a motion by the Oman plaintiff to remove IFF and its officers from the motion and to add factual allegations from the US amended complaint. The amended Oman motion was filed on July 4, 2021. On August 29, 2021, the former Frutarom officers and certain former Frutarom directors filed a motion to dismiss the case. On September 30, 2021, Frutarom notified the court that it joins the legal arguments made in the motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On July 14, 2022, the court approved the parties’ motion to mediate the dispute, which postpones all case deadlines until after the mediation. In addition, a request to appeal the court’s denial of the motion to dismiss filed by the former Frutarom officers and certain former Frutarom directors has been stayed. The parties held mediation meetings on September 13, 2022, November 22, 2022, March 1, 2023 and November 2023. On October 29, 2019, IFF and Frutarom filed a claim in the Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, against Ori Yehudai, the former President and CEO of Frutarom, and against certain former directors of Frutarom, challenging the bonus of US $20 million granted to Yehudai in 2018. IFF and Frutarom allege, among other things, that Yehudai was not entitled to receive the bonus because he breached his fiduciary duty by, among other things, knowing of the above-mentioned improper payments and failing to prevent them from being made. The parties agreed, pursuant to the court’s recommendation, to attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation, and a court decision is pending with regard to the order in which this claim and the class action described below will be heard. On March 11, 2020, an IFF shareholder filed a motion to approve a class action in Israel against, among others, Frutarom, Yehudai, and Frutarom’s former board of directors, alleging that former minority shareholders of Frutarom were harmed as a result of the US $20 million bonus paid to Yehudai. The parties to this motion agreed to attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation to take place regarding the aforesaid claim against Yehudai. On July 27, 2021, counsel to the movant in the class action filed a notice with the court that the mediation process ended without an agreement. On August 26, 2021, a motion to dismiss the class action application was filed by Yehudai and certain former directors of Frutarom. On September 9, 2021, an additional motion to dismiss was filed by other former directors of Frutarom together with ICC Industries, Inc. and its affiliates. On December 9, 2021, the court denied the motions to dismiss. Responses to the class action motion were filed in May 2022, and applicant’s response was filed in December 2022. An evidentiary hearing is set for March 2024. Since March 2023, various putative class action lawsuits have been filed against IFF, Firmenich International SA, Givaudan SA, and Symrise AG and/or certain affiliates thereof in the Quebec Superior Court, the Federal Court of Canada, Ontario Superior Court, Supreme Court of British Columbia and, in several cases, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. These actions allege violations of the Canadian Competition Act and the Sherman Act, as applicable, and other related claims, and seek damages and other relief. IFF may face additional civil suits, in the United States or elsewhere, relating to such alleged conduct. At this time, IFF is unable to predict the potential outcome of these lawsuits or any potential effect they may have on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Investigation On June 3, 2020, the Israel Police’s National Fraud Investigation Unit and the Israeli Securities Authority commenced an investigation into Frutarom and certain of its former executives, based on suspected bribery of foreign officials, money laundering, and violations of the Israeli Securities Act-1968. As part of the investigation, the National Fraud Investigation Unit and the Israeli Securities Authority have provided IFF and Frutarom with various orders, mainly requesting that IFF and Frutarom provide certain documents and materials. In addition, a seizure of assets was imposed on Frutarom and certain of its affiliates. IFF has been working to ensure compliance with such orders, all in accordance with, and subject to, Israeli law. On August 25, 2021, the Israeli Police informed Frutarom that they have decided to remove the temporary criminal seizure of assets order from the real estate assets of Frutarom and its related companies, which was done in parallel with the transfer of the case to the District Attorney’s Office in Israel. On February 26, 2024, the Israeli authorities informed Frutarom that the authorities decided to close the criminal investigation. On March 7, 2023, the European Commission (“EC”) and the United Kingdom Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) carried out unannounced inspections of certain of IFF’s facilities. On the same day, IFF was served with a grand jury subpoena by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). IFF understands the EC, CMA, DOJ and the Swiss Competition Commission are investigating potential anticompetitive conduct as it relates to IFF’s fragrance businesses. IFF has been and intends to continue cooperating with these investigations. IFF is unable, however, to predict or determine at this time the duration or outcome of the investigations, or whether the outcome of the investigations will materially impact the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. China Facilities Zhejiang Ingredients Plant In the fourth quarter of 2017, the Company concluded discussions with the government regarding the relocation of its Fragrance Ingredients plant in Zhejiang and, based on the agreements reached, expects to receive total compensation payments up to approximately $50 million. The relocation compensation will be paid to the Company over the period of the relocation. The Company received payments totaling $30 million through the end of 2019. Production at the facility ceased during 2019. In the second quarter of 2020, the Company transferred ownership of the site to the government and the remaining net book value of the plant was written off. In the third quarter of 2020, the Company received a payment of approximately $13 million. The land remediation activities were completed in November 2022 and the final land restoration activities to restore the land to its original height, per the government’s request, were completed in April 2023. Upon completion of these activities, the land was returned to the government in April 2023 and a final payment of approximately $5 million was received in June 2023. During the second quarter of 2023, the Company recognized a pre-tax gain of approximately $22 million related to this transaction presented in Other expense (income), net on the Consolidated Statements of (Loss) Income and Comprehensive Loss. The Company also recognized approximately $6 million of income taxes presented in Provision for income taxes on the Consolidated Statements of (Loss) Income and Comprehensive Loss. The calculation of the applicable income taxes related to this transaction was sent to the local tax authorities for review and final approval was received in the fourth quarter of 2023. Products previously manufactured at the Zhejiang Ingredients plant are now being produced at the Company’s Ingredients plant in Jiande, China. Total China Operations The total net book value of all plants in China was approximately $215 million as of December 31, 2023. If the Company is required to close a plant, or operate one at significantly reduced production levels on a permanent basis, the Company may be required to record charges that could have a material impact on its consolidated financial results of operations, financial position and cash flows in future periods. Environmental Proceedings The Company is reporting the following environmental matter in compliance with SEC requirements to disclose environmental proceedings where a governmental authority is a party and that involve potential monetary sanctions of $300,000 or greater. On May 27, 2022, the Solae, LLC Memphis site (“Solae”) was served an Administrative Order and Assessment (the “Order”) by the City of Memphis related to alleged wastewater discharge violations. Solae submitted an appeal of the Order on June 24, 2022. Discussions with the City regarding potential resolution of the violations and penalties related to said violations are ongoing. Additionally, the Solae facility has undertaken capital project efforts, some of which began prior to the issuance of the Order, that are anticipated to address, on a schedule consistent with the Order, deadlines for attaining compliance with current wastewater permit requirements. This matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, cash flows or results of operations. Other Contingencies The Company has contingencies involving third parties (such as labor, contract, technology or product-related claims or litigation) as well as government-related items in various jurisdictions in which it operates pertaining to such items as value-added taxes, other indirect taxes, customs and duties and sales and use taxes. It is possible that cash flows or results of operations, in any period, could be materially affected by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies. The most significant government-related contingencies exist in Brazil. With regard to the Brazilian matters, the Company believes it has valid defenses for the underlying positions under dispute; however, in order to pursue these defenses, the Company is required to, and has provided, bank guarantees and pledged assets in the aggregate amount of approximately $19 million. The Brazilian matters take an extended period of time to proceed through the judicial process and there are a limited number of rulings to date. Brazil Tax Credits In 2017, the Brazilian Supreme Court (“BSC”) ruled that Brazilian tax authorities should not include a value added tax known as “ICMS” in the calculation of certain indirect taxes (“PIS/COFINS”). By removing the ICMS from the calculation of the indirect tax base, the Court effectively eliminated a “tax on tax.” The Brazilian tax authorities filed an appeal seeking clarification of certain matters, including the amount of ICMS to which taxpayers would be entitled in order to reduce their indirect tax base (i.e. the gross rate or the net rate). In light of the BSC’s decision, in November 2017, the Company filed suit consistent with the BSC decision to require that ICMS be excluded from the PIS/COFINS calculation and received a favorable preliminary decision that was confirmed by the BSC in September 2018. This preliminary ruling granted the Company the right to prospectively exclude ICMS amounts from the PIS/COFINS calculation, but left open the issue of whether the Company could recover the gross or net amount of ICMS amounts paid on PIS/COFINS for the period from November 2011 to December 2018. In January 2020, the Company was informed of a favorable ruling from the Brazilian tax authorities confirming that the Company was entitled to recover the overpayments of PIS/COFINS for the period from November 2011 to December 2018, plus interest on the amount of the overpayments. The overpayments arose from the inclusion of a value added tax known as ICMS in the calculation of the PIS/COFINS tax. The ruling did not, however, settle the question of whether the Company is eligible to recover overpayments based on the gross or the net amount of ICMS amounts paid on PIS/COFINS. The Company calculated the amount of overpayments using the gross method which yields a higher amount than the application of the net method. A final ruling on the gross versus net amount issue was made by the BSC who affirmed the use of the gross calculation with respect to claims submitted prior to March 2017. Although the Company had not submitted a claim until after March 2017, the Company believes that the Supreme Court, whilst confirming the use of the gross method of calculation, does not override the January 2020 ruling by the Brazilian tax authorities with respect to the timeframe for the calculation. In addition to the $8 million recognized in the fourth quarter of 2019, during the first quarter of 2020 the Company recognized $4 million as an additional recovery on the existing claim. During 2020, the Company also recognized $3 million related to a claim from another of its subsidiaries in Brazil. The income was recognized as a reduction in Selling and administrative expenses. In February 2023, the BSC made an unfavorable court resolution for the Company related to the use of the gross method, which was only granted to claims submitted prior to March 2017. As a result of this unfavorable court resolution, the Company wrote off its remaining receivables of approximately $6 million related to this matter during the first quarter of 2023. Avicel® PH NF (Pharma Solutions) The Company has determined that certain grades of microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel® PH 101, 102, and 200 NF and Avicel® RC-591 NF) were found to be out-of-specification (collectively, “OOS Avicel® NF”). The Company does not expect the OOS conductivity issue to affect the functionality of Avicel® NF grades or to pose a human health hazard. Corrective actions have been implemented to improve operational and laboratory conditions. Based on the information available, as of December 31, 2023, payments associated with this matter were approximately $46 million, and the Company no longer had an accrual related to this matter. The total amount of exposure may increase if additional customers present claims or other exposures are identified. Other The Company determines estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses in excess of related accrued liabilities, if any, when it has determined that either a loss is reasonably possible or a loss in excess of accrued amounts is reasonably possible and the amount of losses or range of losses is determinable. For all third party contingencies (including labor, contract, technology, tax, product-related claims and business litigation), the Company currently estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of any accrued liabilities is $0 to approximately $75 million. The estimates included in this amount are based on the Company’s analysis of currently available information and, as new information is obtained, these estimates may change. Due to the inherent subjectivity of the assessments and the unpredictability of outcomes of legal proceedings, any amounts accrued or included in this aggregate amount may not represent the ultimate loss to the Company from the matters in question. Thus, the Company’s exposure and ultimate losses may be higher or lower, and possibly significantly so, than the amounts accrued or the range disclosed above.

The Company assesses contingencies related to litigation and/or other matters to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss. A loss contingency is accrued in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable and unfavorable resolutions could occur, assessing contingencies is highly sensitive and requires judgments about future events. On at least a quarterly basis, the Company reviews contingencies related to litigation to determine the adequacy of accruals. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates and further events may require the Company to increase or decrease the amounts it has accrued on any matter.

Periodically, the Company assesses its insurance coverage for all known claims, where applicable, taking into account aggregate coverage by occurrence, limits of coverage, self-insured retentions and deductibles, historical claims experience and claims experience with its insurance carriers. The liabilities are recorded at management’s best estimate of the probable outcome of the lawsuits and claims, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the individual matters as well as past experience on similar matters. At each balance sheet date, the key issues that management assesses are whether it is probable that a loss as to asserted or unasserted claims has been incurred and if so, whether the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company records the expected liability with respect to claims in Other liabilities and expected recoveries from its insurance carriers in Other assets. The Company recognizes a receivable when it believes that realization of the insurance receivable is probable under the terms of the insurance policies and its payment experience to date.

On August 12, 2019, Marc Jansen filed a putative securities class action against IFF, its then Chairman and CEO, and its then-CFO, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was filed after IFF disclosed that preliminary results of investigations indicated that Frutarom businesses operating principally in Russia and Ukraine had made improper payments to representatives of customers. On March 16, 2020, an amended complaint was filed, which added Frutarom and certain former officers of Frutarom as defendants. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements or omissions concerning IFF’s acquisition of Frutarom, the integration of the two companies, and the companies’ financial reporting and results. The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and under the Israeli Securities Act-1968, against all defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual defendants, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF securities on the New York Stock Exchange between May 7, 2018 and August 12, 2019 and persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF securities on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between October 9, 2018 and August 12, 2019. The amended complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses. IFF, its officers, and Frutarom filed a motion to dismiss the case on June 26, 2020, which was granted on March 30, 2021. On April 28, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Lead plaintiffs are pursuing the appeal only against Frutarom and certain former officers of Frutarom. The parties have submitted their briefs to the Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit held oral argument on February 10, 2022. On September 30, 2022, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims. On October 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, which the Second Circuit denied on January 4, 2023. Plaintiffs did not seek review in the United States Supreme Court. The matter is therefore fully resolved in defendants’ favor.

Two motions to approve securities class actions were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, in August 2019, similarly alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements largely in connection with IFF’s acquisition of Frutarom and the above-mentioned improper payments. One motion (“Borg”) asserts claims under the U.S. federal securities laws against IFF, its former Chairman and CEO, and its former CFO. On November 8, 2020, IFF and its officers filed their response to the Borg motion. On April 20, 2021, Mr. Borg filed a motion to stay the proceeding pending an appellate decision in the U.S. proceeding. On June 15, 2021, August 11, 2021, November 9, 2021, January 9, 2022, April 7, 2022 and July 10, 2022, the U.S. lead plaintiffs filed update notices with the Israeli court regarding the appeal in the U.S. proceeding. On June 12, 2023, the petitioner filed a withdrawal motion, which the court then granted. The Borg case is now dismissed. The other motion (“Oman”) (following an initial amendment) asserted claims under the Israeli Securities Act-1968 against IFF, its former Chairman and CEO, and its former CFO, and against Frutarom and certain former Frutarom officers and directors, as well as claims under the Israeli Companies Act-1999 against certain former Frutarom officers and directors. On February 17, 2021, the court granted a motion by the Oman plaintiff to remove IFF and its officers from the motion and to add factual allegations from the US amended complaint. The amended Oman motion was filed on July 4, 2021. On August 29, 2021, the former Frutarom officers and certain former Frutarom directors filed a motion to dismiss the case. On September 30, 2021, Frutarom notified the court that it joins the legal arguments made in the motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On July 14, 2022, the court approved the parties’ motion to mediate the dispute, which postpones all case deadlines until after the mediation. In addition, a request to appeal the court’s denial of the motion to dismiss filed by the former Frutarom officers and certain former Frutarom directors has been stayed. The parties held mediation meetings on September 13, 2022, November 22, 2022, March 1, 2023 and November 2023.

On October 29, 2019, IFF and Frutarom filed a claim in the Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, against Ori Yehudai, the former President and CEO of Frutarom, and against certain former directors of Frutarom, challenging the bonus of US $20 million granted to Yehudai in 2018. IFF and Frutarom allege, among other things, that Yehudai was not entitled to receive the bonus because he breached his fiduciary duty by, among other things, knowing of the above-mentioned improper payments and failing to prevent them from being made. The parties agreed, pursuant to the court’s recommendation, to attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation, and a court decision is pending with regard to the order in which this claim and the class action described below will be heard.

On March 11, 2020, an IFF shareholder filed a motion to approve a class action in Israel against, among others, Frutarom, Yehudai, and Frutarom’s former board of directors, alleging that former minority shareholders of Frutarom were harmed as a result of the US $20 million bonus paid to Yehudai. The parties to this motion agreed to attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation to take place regarding the aforesaid claim against Yehudai. On July 27, 2021, counsel to the movant in the class action filed a notice with the court that the mediation process ended without an agreement. On August 26, 2021, a motion to dismiss the class action application was filed by Yehudai and certain former directors of Frutarom. On September 9, 2021, an additional motion to dismiss was filed by other former directors of Frutarom together with ICC Industries, Inc. and its affiliates. On December 9, 2021, the court denied the motions to dismiss. Responses to the class action motion were filed in May 2022, and applicant’s response was filed in December 2022. An evidentiary hearing is set for March 2024.

Since March 2023, various putative class action lawsuits have been filed against IFF, Firmenich International SA, Givaudan SA, and Symrise AG and/or certain affiliates thereof in the Quebec Superior Court, the Federal Court of Canada, Ontario Superior Court, Supreme Court of British Columbia and, in several cases, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. These actions allege violations of the Canadian Competition Act and the Sherman Act, as applicable, and other related claims, and seek damages and other relief. IFF may face additional civil suits, in the United States or elsewhere, relating to such alleged conduct. At this time, IFF is unable to predict the potential outcome of these lawsuits or any potential effect they may have on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

On June 3, 2020, the Israel Police’s National Fraud Investigation Unit and the Israeli Securities Authority commenced an investigation into Frutarom and certain of its former executives, based on suspected bribery of foreign officials, money laundering, and violations of the Israeli Securities Act-1968. As part of the investigation, the National Fraud Investigation Unit and the Israeli Securities Authority have provided IFF and Frutarom with various orders, mainly requesting that IFF and Frutarom provide certain documents and materials. In addition, a seizure of assets was imposed on Frutarom and certain of its affiliates. IFF has been working to ensure compliance with such orders, all in accordance with, and subject to, Israeli law. On August 25, 2021, the Israeli Police informed Frutarom that they have decided to remove the temporary criminal seizure of assets order from the real estate assets of Frutarom and its related companies, which was done in parallel with the transfer of the case to the District Attorney’s Office in Israel. On February 26, 2024, the Israeli authorities informed Frutarom that the authorities decided to close the criminal investigation.

On March 7, 2023, the European Commission (“EC”) and the United Kingdom Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) carried out unannounced inspections of certain of IFF’s facilities. On the same day, IFF was served with a grand jury subpoena by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). IFF understands the EC, CMA, DOJ and the Swiss Competition Commission are investigating potential anticompetitive conduct as it relates to IFF’s fragrance businesses. IFF has been and intends to continue cooperating with these investigations. IFF is unable, however, to predict or determine at this time the duration or outcome of the investigations, or whether the outcome of the investigations will materially impact the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, the Company concluded discussions with the government regarding the relocation of its Fragrance Ingredients plant in Zhejiang and, based on the agreements reached, expects to receive total compensation payments up to approximately $50 million. The relocation compensation will be paid to the Company over the period of the relocation. The Company received payments totaling $30 million through the end of 2019. Production at the facility ceased during 2019. In the second quarter of 2020, the Company transferred ownership of the site to the government and the remaining net book value of the plant was written off. In the third quarter of 2020, the Company received a payment of approximately $13 million. The land remediation activities were completed in November 2022 and the final land restoration activities to restore the land to its original height, per the government’s request, were completed in April 2023. Upon completion of these activities, the land was returned to the government in April 2023 and a final payment of approximately $5 million was received in June 2023.

During the second quarter of 2023, the Company recognized a pre-tax gain of approximately $22 million related to this transaction presented in Other expense (income), net on the Consolidated Statements of (Loss) Income and Comprehensive Loss. The Company also recognized approximately $6 million of income taxes presented in Provision for income taxes on the Consolidated Statements of (Loss) Income and Comprehensive Loss. The calculation of the applicable income taxes related to this transaction was sent to the local tax authorities for review and final approval was received in the fourth quarter of 2023.

The Company is reporting the following environmental matter in compliance with SEC requirements to disclose environmental proceedings where a governmental authority is a party and that involve potential monetary sanctions of $300,000 or greater. On May 27, 2022, the Solae, LLC Memphis site (“Solae”) was served an Administrative Order and Assessment (the “Order”) by the City of Memphis related to alleged wastewater discharge violations. Solae submitted an appeal of the Order on June 24, 2022. Discussions with the City regarding potential resolution of the violations and penalties related to said violations are ongoing. Additionally, the Solae facility has undertaken capital project efforts, some of which began prior to the issuance of the Order, that are anticipated to address, on a schedule consistent with the Order, deadlines for attaining compliance with current wastewater permit requirements. This matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, cash flows or results of operations.

The Company has contingencies involving third parties (such as labor, contract, technology or product-related claims or litigation) as well as government-related items in various jurisdictions in which it operates pertaining to such items as value-added taxes, other indirect taxes, customs and duties and sales and use taxes. It is possible that cash flows or results of operations, in any period, could be materially affected by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies.

The most significant government-related contingencies exist in Brazil. With regard to the Brazilian matters, the Company believes it has valid defenses for the underlying positions under dispute; however, in order to pursue these defenses, the Company is required to, and has provided, bank guarantees and pledged assets in the aggregate amount of approximately $19 million. The Brazilian matters take an extended period of time to proceed through the judicial process and there are a limited number of rulings to date.

In 2017, the Brazilian Supreme Court (“BSC”) ruled that Brazilian tax authorities should not include a value added tax known as “ICMS” in the calculation of certain indirect taxes (“PIS/COFINS”). By removing the ICMS from the calculation of the indirect tax base, the Court effectively eliminated a “tax on tax.” The Brazilian tax authorities filed an appeal seeking clarification of certain matters, including the amount of ICMS to which taxpayers would be entitled in order to reduce their indirect tax base (i.e. the gross rate or the net rate). In light of the BSC’s decision, in November 2017, the Company filed suit consistent with the BSC decision to require that ICMS be excluded from the PIS/COFINS calculation and received a favorable preliminary decision that was confirmed by the BSC in September 2018. This preliminary ruling granted the Company the right to prospectively exclude ICMS amounts from the PIS/COFINS calculation, but left open the issue of whether the Company could recover the gross or net amount of ICMS amounts paid on PIS/COFINS for the period from November 2011 to December 2018.

In January 2020, the Company was informed of a favorable ruling from the Brazilian tax authorities confirming that the Company was entitled to recover the overpayments of PIS/COFINS for the period from November 2011 to December 2018, plus interest on the amount of the overpayments. The overpayments arose from the inclusion of a value added tax known as ICMS in the calculation of the PIS/COFINS tax. The ruling did not, however, settle the question of whether the Company is eligible to recover overpayments based on the gross or the net amount of ICMS amounts paid on PIS/COFINS. The Company calculated the amount of overpayments using the gross method which yields a higher amount than the application of the net method. A final ruling on the gross versus net amount issue was made by the BSC who affirmed the use of the gross calculation with respect to claims submitted prior to March 2017. Although the Company had not submitted a claim until after March 2017, the Company believes that the Supreme Court, whilst confirming the use of the gross method of calculation, does not override the January 2020 ruling by the Brazilian tax authorities with respect to the timeframe for the calculation.

The Company has determined that certain grades of microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel® PH 101, 102, and 200 NF and Avicel® RC-591 NF) were found to be out-of-specification (collectively, “OOS Avicel® NF”). The Company does not expect the OOS conductivity issue to affect the functionality of Avicel® NF grades or to pose a human health hazard. Corrective actions have been implemented to improve operational and laboratory conditions. Based on the information available, as of December 31, 2023, payments associated with this matter were approximately $46 million, and the Company no longer had an accrual related to this matter. The total amount of exposure may increase if additional customers present claims or other exposures are identified.

The Company determines estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses in excess of related accrued liabilities, if any, when it has determined that either a loss is reasonably possible or a loss in excess of accrued amounts is reasonably possible and the amount of losses or range of losses is determinable. For all third party contingencies (including labor, contract, technology, tax, product-related claims and business litigation), the Company currently estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of any accrued liabilities is $0 to approximately $75 million. The estimates included in this amount are based on the Company’s analysis of currently available information and, as new information is obtained, these estimates may change. Due to the inherent subjectivity of the assessments and the unpredictability of outcomes of legal proceedings, any amounts accrued or included in this aggregate amount may not represent the ultimate loss to the Company from the matters in question. Thus, the Company’s exposure and ultimate losses may be higher or lower, and possibly significantly so, than the amounts accrued or the range disclosed above.