COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Environmental Proceedings International Paper has been named as a potentially responsible party in environmental remediation actions under various federal and state laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Many of these proceedings involve the cleanup of hazardous substances at large commercial landfills that received waste from many different sources. While joint and several liability is authorized under CERCLA and equivalent state laws, as a practical matter, liability for CERCLA cleanups is typically allocated among the many potential responsible parties. Remedial costs are recorded in the consolidated financial statements when they become probable and reasonably estimable. International Paper has estimated the probable liability associated with these matters to be approximately $95 million in the aggregate. One of the matters referenced above is a closed wood treating facility located in Cass Lake, Minnesota. During 2009, in connection with an environmental site remediation action under CERCLA, International Paper submitted to the EPA a site remediation feasibility study. In June 2011, the EPA selected and published a proposed soil remedy at the site with an estimated cost of $46 million. As a result, the overall remediation reserve for the site is currently $49 million to address this selection of an alternative for the soil remediation component of the overall site remedy. In October 2011, the EPA released a public statement indicating that the final soil remedy decision would be delayed. In the unlikely event that the EPA changes its proposed soil remedy and approves instead a more expensive clean-up alternative, the remediation costs could be material, and significantly higher than amounts currently recorded. In addition to the above matters, other remediation costs typically associated with the cleanup of hazardous substances at the Company’s current, closed or formerly-owned facilities, and recorded as liabilities in the balance sheet, totaled approximately $45 million. Other than as described above, completion of required remedial actions is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements. The Company is a potentially responsible party with respect to the Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site (Kalamazoo River Superfund Site) in Michigan. The EPA asserts that the site is contaminated primarily by PCBs as a result of discharges from various paper mills located along the river, including a paper mill formerly owned by St. Regis Paper Co. (St. Regis). The Company is a successor in interest to St. Regis. International Paper has not received any orders from the EPA with respect to the site and is in the process of collecting information from the EPA and other parties relative to the Kalamazoo River Superfund Site to evaluate the extent of its liability, if any, with respect to the site. Accordingly, it is premature to estimate a loss or range of loss with respect to this site. Also in connection with the Kalamazoo River Superfund Site, the Company was named as a defendant by Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, Fort James Corporation and Georgia Pacific LLC in a contribution and cost recovery action for alleged pollution at the Kalamazoo River Superfund Site. The suit seeks contribution under CERCLA for $79 million in costs purportedly expended by plaintiffs as of the filing of the complaint and for future remediation costs. The suit alleges that a mill, during the time it was allegedly owned and operated by St. Regis, discharged PCB contaminated solids and paper residuals resulting from paper de-inking and recycling. Also named as defendants in the suit are NCR Corporation and Weyerhaeuser Company. In mid-2011, the suit was transferred from the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to the District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The Company is involved in the initial liability determination phase of the case and thus believes it is premature to predict the outcome or to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred. International Paper and McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., are potentially responsible parties at the San Jacinto River Superfund Site in Harris County, Texas, and have been actively participating in investigation and remediation activities at this Superfund Site. In December 2011, Harris County, Texas filed a suit against the Company in Harris County District Court seeking civil penalties with regard to the alleged discharge of dioxin into the San Jacinto River since 1965 from the San Jacinto River Superfund Site. Also named as defendants in this action are McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation, Waste Management, Inc. and Waste Management of Texas Inc. Harris County is seeking civil penalties pursuant to the Texas Water Code, which provides for the imposition of civil penalties between $50 and $25,000 per day. The case is in its preliminary stages and it is therefore premature to predict the outcome or to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred. In October 2012, a civil lawsuit was filed against the same defendants, including the Company, in the District Court of Harris County by more than 200 plaintiffs seeking damages with regard to the alleged discharge of dioxin into the San Jacinto River since 1965 from waste impoundments that are a part of the San Jacinto Superfund Site. The allegations are similar to those in three suits filed against the same defendants in July and August 2012 in Harris, Chambers, and Galveston Counties. Each of these three suits was withdrawn by the plaintiffs soon after filing. This case is newly filed and it is therefore premature to predict the outcome or to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred. In August 2011, Temple-Inland's Bogalusa, Louisiana paper mill received predictive test results indicating that Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) limits for permitted discharge from the wastewater treatment pond into the Pearl River were exceeded after an upset condition at the mill and subsequently confirmed reports of a fish kill on the Pearl River (the Bogalusa Incident). Temple-Inland initiated a full mill shut down, notified the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) of the situation and took corrective actions to restore the water quality of the river. On September 2, 2011, Bogalusa mill operations were restarted upon receiving approval from the LDEQ. The LDEQ, the Mississippi DEQ, and other regulatory agencies in those states have each given a notice of intent to levy penalties and recover restitution damages resulting from the Bogalusa Incident. To date, we have settled for a total of approximately $1 million the known claims of various Mississippi regulatory agencies and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). However, on September 10, 2012, the settlement with the LDWF for restitution damages related to the Bogalusa Incident was vacated by a state district court. We believe the settlement is valid and are appealing the court's ruling. The LDEQ has not yet levied a civil enforcement penalty. Such a penalty is expected, however, and is likely to exceed $1 million, but is not expected to be material. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Orleans also initiated a criminal investigation into the Bogalusa Incident. A tentative plea agreement, subject to court approval, has been reached with the U.S. Attorney's Office. The agreement would provide for the payment of fines, the aggregate amount of which is not expected to be material. Temple-Inland (or its affiliates) is a defendant in 24 civil lawsuits in Louisiana and Mississippi related to the Bogalusa Incident. One case is the LDWF suit discussed above filed by the district attorney for Washington Parish. Fifteen of these civil cases were filed in Louisiana state court shortly after the incident and have been removed and consolidated in an action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana along with a civil case originally filed in that court. During August 2012, an additional 13 causes of action were filed in federal or state court in Mississippi and Louisiana. In October 2012, International Paper and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, the group of attorneys appointed by the Louisiana federal court to organize and coordinate the efforts of all the plaintiffs in this litigation, reached a tentative understanding on key structural terms and an amount for resolution of the litigation. The parties still must negotiate a settlement agreement containing mutually acceptable terms and conditions and any such proposed agreement would be subject to various approvals, including by the Louisiana federal court. In any event, however, we do not believe that a material loss is probable in this litigation. Legal Proceedings In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in August 2005, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged class is all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the period August 2005 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and attorney’s fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys’ fees. The Company disputes the allegations made and intends to vigorously defend each action. However, because both actions are in the preliminary stages, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. The Company’s subsidiary, Temple-Inland, is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in August 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas captioned Tepper v. Temple-Inland Inc. This lawsuit was brought by the liquidation trustee for Guaranty Financial Group, Inc., Temple-Inland’s former financial services business which was spun off by Temple-Inland in 2007, on behalf of certain creditors of the business. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Temple-Inland and certain of its affiliates, officers, and directors caused the failure of Guaranty Financial Group and its wholly-owned subsidiary Guaranty Bank and asserts various claims related to the failure. Among the claims made are alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and Temple-Inland related to (1) Guaranty Financial Group’s payment of dividends in 2006 and early 2007 and (2) Guaranty Financial Group’s transfers of real property to subsidiaries of Temple-Inland for allegedly inadequate consideration in December 2005 and in late 2007. Claims are also made against Temple-Inland based on allegations that those transactions were fraudulent transfers. In March, all defendants in the lawsuit filed answers to the complaint denying all claims asserted against them. We continue to believe that the claims asserted in the Tepper case are without merit and remain prepared to defend them vigorously. Nonetheless, without admitting any liability with respect to such claims, in October 2012, we entered into a settlement with the liquidation trustee and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to resolve this litigation. The settlement agreement, which is conditioned upon and subject to court approval, would resolve all claims related to the spin-off and subsequent failure of Guaranty Bank that have been or could be asserted by the trustee or the FDIC, in its capacity as Receiver of Guaranty Bank, against Temple-Inland and its affiliates or any of its former officers, directors or employees. In exchange for this full release from liability, Temple-Inland has agreed to release certain bankruptcy-related claims it and other defendants have asserted in the Guaranty Financial Group bankruptcy, and to make $80 million in payments ($38 million to the trustee and $42 million to the FDIC). In anticipation of this agreement and based on a May 2012 preliminary settlement agreement with the liquidation trustee, in the second quarter of 2012, we established a purchase price accounting reserve relating to this matter in this same amount. As noted below and as previously reported, we are seeking to recover a portion of this settlement amount from insurers. Temple-Inland is also a defendant in a lawsuit captioned North Port Firefighters’ Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc., filed in November 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and subsequently amended. The lawsuit alleges a class action against Temple-Inland and certain individual defendants contending that Temple-Inland misrepresented the financial condition of Guaranty Financial Group during the period December 12, 2007 through August 24, 2009. Temple-Inland distributed the stock of Guaranty Financial Group to its shareholders on December 28, 2007, after which Guaranty Financial Group was an independent, publicly held company. The action is pled as a securities claim on behalf of persons who acquired Guaranty Financial Group stock during the putative class period. Although focused chiefly on statements made by Guaranty Financial Group to its shareholders after it was an independent, publicly held company, the action repeats many of the same allegations of fact made in the Tepper litigation. On June 20, 2012, all defendants in the lawsuit filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. We believe the claims made against Temple-Inland in the North Port lawsuit are without merit, and we intend to defend them vigorously. The lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, and thus we believe it is premature to predict the outcome or to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred. Each of the individual defendants in both the Tepper litigation and the North Port litigation has requested advancement of their costs of defense from Temple-Inland and has asserted a right to indemnification by Temple-Inland. We believe that all or part of these defense costs, a portion of the settlement amount in the Tepper litigation and any potential damages awarded against the individual defendants in the North Port litigation and covered by any Temple-Inland indemnity would be covered losses under Temple-Inland’s directors and officers insurance. The carriers under the applicable policies have been notified of the claims and each has responded with a reservation of rights letter. The Company is currently being challenged by Brazilian tax authorities concerning the statute of limitations related to the use of certain tax credits. The Company is appealing an unfavorable March 2012 administrative court ruling. The potential loss to the Company in the event of a final unfavorable outcome is approximately $31 million. The Company is involved in various other inquiries, administrative proceedings and litigation relating to environmental and safety matters, contracts, sales of property, intellectual property, personal injury, labor and employment and other matters, some of which allege substantial monetary damages. While any proceeding or litigation has the element of uncertainty, the Company believes that the outcome of any of the lawsuits or claims that are pending or threatened or all of them combined (other than those that cannot be assessed due to their preliminary nature) will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Environmental Proceedings

International Paper has been named as a potentially responsible party in environmental remediation actions under various federal and state laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Many of these proceedings involve the cleanup of hazardous substances at large commercial landfills that received waste from many different sources. While joint and several liability is authorized under CERCLA and equivalent state laws, as a practical matter, liability for CERCLA cleanups is typically allocated among the many potential responsible parties. Remedial costs are recorded in the consolidated financial statements when they become probable and reasonably estimable. International Paper has estimated the probable liability associated with these matters to be approximately $95 million in the aggregate.

One of the matters referenced above is a closed wood treating facility located in Cass Lake, Minnesota. During 2009, in connection with an environmental site remediation action under CERCLA, International Paper submitted to the EPA a site remediation feasibility study. In June 2011, the EPA selected and published a proposed soil remedy at the site with an estimated cost of $46 million. As a result, the overall remediation reserve for the site is currently $49 million to address this selection of an alternative for the soil remediation component of the overall site remedy. In October 2011, the EPA released a public statement indicating that the final soil remedy decision would be delayed. In the unlikely event that the EPA changes its proposed soil remedy and approves instead a more expensive clean-up alternative, the remediation costs could be material, and significantly higher than amounts currently recorded.

In addition to the above matters, other remediation costs typically associated with the cleanup of hazardous substances at the Company’s current, closed or formerly-owned facilities, and recorded as liabilities in the balance sheet, totaled approximately $45 million. Other than as described above, completion of required remedial actions is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

The Company is a potentially responsible party with respect to the Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site (Kalamazoo River Superfund Site) in Michigan. The EPA asserts that the site is contaminated primarily by PCBs as a result of discharges from various paper mills located along the river, including a paper mill formerly owned by St. Regis Paper Co. (St. Regis). The Company is a successor in interest to St. Regis. International Paper has not received any orders from the EPA with respect to the site and is in the process of collecting information from the EPA and other parties relative to the Kalamazoo River Superfund Site to evaluate the extent of its liability, if any, with respect to the site. Accordingly, it is premature to estimate a loss or range of loss with respect to this site.

Also in connection with the Kalamazoo River Superfund Site, the Company was named as a defendant by Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, Fort James Corporation and Georgia Pacific LLC in a contribution and cost recovery action for alleged pollution at the Kalamazoo River Superfund Site. The suit seeks contribution under CERCLA for $79 million in costs purportedly expended by plaintiffs as of the filing of the complaint and for future remediation costs. The suit alleges that a mill, during the time it was allegedly owned and operated by St. Regis, discharged PCB contaminated solids and paper residuals resulting from paper de-inking and recycling. Also named as defendants in the suit are NCR Corporation and Weyerhaeuser Company. In mid-2011, the suit was transferred from the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to the District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The Company is involved in the initial liability determination phase of the case and thus believes it is premature to predict the outcome or to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred.

International Paper and McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., are potentially responsible parties at the San Jacinto River Superfund Site in Harris County, Texas, and have been actively participating in investigation and remediation activities at this Superfund Site. In December 2011, Harris County, Texas filed a suit against the Company in Harris County District Court seeking civil penalties with regard to the alleged discharge of dioxin into the San Jacinto River since 1965 from the San Jacinto River Superfund Site. Also named as defendants in this action are McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation, Waste Management, Inc. and Waste Management of Texas Inc. Harris County is seeking civil penalties pursuant to the Texas Water Code, which provides for the imposition of civil penalties between $50 and $25,000 per day. The case is in its preliminary stages and it is therefore premature to predict the outcome or to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred.

In October 2012, a civil lawsuit was filed against the same defendants, including the Company, in the District Court of Harris County by more than 200 plaintiffs seeking damages with regard to the alleged discharge of dioxin into the San Jacinto River since 1965 from waste impoundments that are a part of the San Jacinto Superfund Site. The allegations are similar to those in three suits filed against the same defendants in July and August 2012 in Harris, Chambers, and Galveston Counties. Each of these three suits was withdrawn by the plaintiffs soon after filing. This case is newly filed and it is therefore premature to predict the outcome or to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred.

In August 2011, Temple-Inland's Bogalusa, Louisiana paper mill received predictive test results indicating that Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) limits for permitted discharge from the wastewater treatment pond into the Pearl River were exceeded after an upset condition at the mill and subsequently confirmed reports of a fish kill on the Pearl River (the Bogalusa Incident). Temple-Inland initiated a full mill shut down, notified the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) of the situation and took corrective actions to restore the water quality of the river. On September 2, 2011, Bogalusa mill operations were restarted upon receiving approval from the LDEQ. The LDEQ, the Mississippi DEQ, and other regulatory agencies in those states have each given a notice of intent to levy penalties and recover restitution damages resulting from the Bogalusa Incident. To date, we have settled for a total of approximately $1 million the known claims of various Mississippi regulatory agencies and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). However, on September 10, 2012, the settlement with the LDWF for restitution damages related to the Bogalusa Incident was vacated by a state district court. We believe the settlement is valid and are appealing the court's ruling. The LDEQ has not yet levied a civil enforcement penalty. Such a penalty is expected, however, and is likely to exceed $1 million, but is not expected to be material. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Orleans also initiated a criminal investigation into the Bogalusa Incident. A tentative plea agreement, subject to court approval, has been reached with the U.S. Attorney's Office. The agreement would provide for the payment of fines, the aggregate amount of which is not expected to be material.

Temple-Inland (or its affiliates) is a defendant in 24 civil lawsuits in Louisiana and Mississippi related to the Bogalusa Incident. One case is the LDWF suit discussed above filed by the district attorney for Washington Parish. Fifteen of these civil cases were filed in Louisiana state court shortly after the incident and have been removed and consolidated in an action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana along with a civil case originally filed in that court. During August 2012, an additional 13 causes of action were filed in federal or state court in Mississippi and Louisiana. In October 2012, International Paper and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, the group of attorneys appointed by the Louisiana federal court to organize and coordinate the efforts of all the plaintiffs in this litigation, reached a tentative understanding on key structural terms and an amount for resolution of the litigation. The parties still must negotiate a settlement agreement containing mutually acceptable terms and conditions and any such proposed agreement would be subject to various approvals, including by the Louisiana federal court. In any event, however, we do not believe that a material loss is probable in this litigation.

Legal Proceedings

In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in August 2005, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged class is all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the period August 2005 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and attorney’s fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys’ fees. The Company disputes the allegations made and intends to vigorously defend each action. However, because both actions are in the preliminary stages, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

The Company’s subsidiary, Temple-Inland, is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in August 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas captioned Tepper v. Temple-Inland Inc. This lawsuit was brought by the liquidation trustee for Guaranty Financial Group, Inc., Temple-Inland’s former financial services business which was spun off by Temple-Inland in 2007, on behalf of certain creditors of the business. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Temple-Inland and certain of its affiliates, officers, and directors caused the failure of Guaranty Financial Group and its wholly-owned subsidiary Guaranty Bank and asserts various claims related to the failure. Among the claims made are alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and Temple-Inland related to (1) Guaranty Financial Group’s payment of dividends in 2006 and early 2007 and (2) Guaranty Financial Group’s transfers of real property to subsidiaries of Temple-Inland for allegedly inadequate consideration in December 2005 and in late 2007. Claims are also made against Temple-Inland based on allegations that those transactions were fraudulent transfers. In March, all defendants in the lawsuit filed answers to the complaint denying all claims asserted against them.

We continue to believe that the claims asserted in the Tepper case are without merit and remain prepared to defend them vigorously. Nonetheless, without admitting any liability with respect to such claims, in October 2012, we entered into a settlement with the liquidation trustee and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to resolve this litigation. The settlement agreement, which is conditioned upon and subject to court approval, would resolve all claims related to the spin-off and subsequent failure of Guaranty Bank that have been or could be asserted by the trustee or the FDIC, in its capacity as Receiver of Guaranty Bank, against Temple-Inland and its affiliates or any of its former officers, directors or employees. In exchange for this full release from liability, Temple-Inland has agreed to release certain bankruptcy-related claims it and other defendants have asserted in the Guaranty Financial Group bankruptcy, and to make $80 million in payments ($38 million to the trustee and $42 million to the FDIC). In anticipation of this agreement and based on a May 2012 preliminary settlement agreement with the liquidation trustee, in the second quarter of 2012, we established a purchase price accounting reserve relating to this matter in this same amount. As noted below and as previously reported, we are seeking to recover a portion of this settlement amount from insurers.

Temple-Inland is also a defendant in a lawsuit captioned North Port Firefighters’ Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc., filed in November 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and subsequently amended. The lawsuit alleges a class action against Temple-Inland and certain individual defendants contending that Temple-Inland misrepresented the financial condition of Guaranty Financial Group during the period December 12, 2007 through August 24, 2009. Temple-Inland distributed the stock of Guaranty Financial Group to its shareholders on December 28, 2007, after which Guaranty Financial Group was an independent, publicly held company. The action is pled as a securities claim on behalf of persons who acquired Guaranty Financial Group stock during the putative class period. Although focused chiefly on statements made by Guaranty Financial Group to its shareholders after it was an independent, publicly held company, the action repeats many of the same allegations of fact made in the Tepper litigation. On June 20, 2012, all defendants in the lawsuit filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. We believe the claims made against Temple-Inland in the North Port lawsuit are without merit, and we intend to defend them vigorously. The lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, and thus we believe it is premature to predict the outcome or to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred.

Each of the individual defendants in both the Tepper litigation and the North Port litigation has requested advancement of their costs of defense from Temple-Inland and has asserted a right to indemnification by Temple-Inland. We believe that all or part of these defense costs, a portion of the settlement amount in the Tepper litigation and any potential damages awarded against the individual defendants in the North Port litigation and covered by any Temple-Inland indemnity would be covered losses under Temple-Inland’s directors and officers insurance. The carriers under the applicable policies have been notified of the claims and each has responded with a reservation of rights letter.

The Company is currently being challenged by Brazilian tax authorities concerning the statute of limitations related to the use of certain tax credits. The Company is appealing an unfavorable March 2012 administrative court ruling. The potential loss to the Company in the event of a final unfavorable outcome is approximately $31 million.

The Company is involved in various other inquiries, administrative proceedings and litigation relating to environmental and safety matters, contracts, sales of property, intellectual property, personal injury, labor and employment and other matters, some of which allege substantial monetary damages. While any proceeding or litigation has the element of uncertainty, the Company believes that the outcome of any of the lawsuits or claims that are pending or threatened or all of them combined (other than those that cannot be assessed due to their preliminary nature) will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements.