NOTE 12 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Environmental

International Paper has been named as a potentially responsible party (PRP) 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 PRPs. There are 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. Remediation costs are recorded in the financial statements when they become probable and reasonably estimable. International Paper has estimated the probable liability associated with these matters to be approximately $130 million in the aggregate at September 30, 2017. Other than as described above, completion of required remedial actions is not expected to have a material effect on our financial statements.

Cass Lake: One of the matters included above arises out of a closed wood-treating facility located in Cass Lake, Minnesota. In June 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected and published a proposed soil remedy at the site with an estimated cost of $46 million. The overall remediation reserve for the site is currently $48 million to address the selection of an alternative for the soil remediation component of the overall site remedy which includes the ongoing groundwater remedy. In October 2011, the EPA released a public statement indicating that the final soil remedy decision would be delayed. In March 2016, the EPA issued a proposed plan concerning clean-up standards at a portion of the site, the estimated cost of which is included within the $48 million reserve referenced above. In October 2012, the Natural Resource Trustees for this site provided notice to International Paper and other potentially responsible parties of their intent to perform a Natural Resource Damage Assessment. It is premature to predict the outcome of this assessment or to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred.

Kalamazoo River: The Company is a PRP with respect to the Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site in Michigan. The EPA asserts that the site is contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) primarily as a result of discharges from various paper mills located along the Kalamazoo River, including a paper mill (the Allied Paper Mill) formerly owned by St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis). The Company is a successor in interest to St. Regis.

•

In March 2016, the Company and other PRPs received a special notice letter from the EPA (i) inviting participation in implementing a remedy for a portion of the site, and (ii) demanding reimbursement of EPA past costs related to this portion of the site totaling $37 million, including $19 million in past costs previously demanded by the EPA. The Company responded to the special notice letter. In December 2016, the EPA issued a unilateral administrative order to the Company and other PRPs to perform the remedy for this portion of the site. The Company responded to the unilateral administrative order agreeing to comply with the order subject to its sufficient cause defenses.


•	In April 2016, the EPA issued a separate unilateral administrative order to the Company and certain other PRPs for a time-critical removal action (TCRA) of PCB-contaminated sediments from a different portion of the site. The Company responded to the unilateral administrative order, agreeing to comply with the order subject to its sufficient cause defenses.

•

In October 2016, the Company and another PRP received a special notice letter from the EPA inviting participation in the remedial design component of the landfill remedy for the Allied Paper Mill. The record of decision establishing the final landfill remedy for the Allied Paper Mill was issued by the EPA in September 2016. The Company responded to the Allied Paper Mill special notice letter in late December 2016. In February 2017, the EPA informed the Company that it would make other arrangements for the performance of the remedial design.

The Company’s CERCLA liability has not been finally determined with respect to these or any other portions of the site, and except as noted above, the Company has declined to perform any work or reimburse the EPA at this time. As noted below, the Company is involved in allocation/apportionment litigation with regard to the site. Accordingly, it is premature to predict the outcome or estimate our maximum reasonably possible loss with respect to this site. However, we do not believe that any material loss is probable.

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 site. The suit seeks contribution under CERCLA for costs purportedly expended by plaintiffs ($79 million 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. NCR Corporation and Weyerhaeuser Company are also named as defendants in the suit. 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 trial of the initial liability phase took place in February 2013. Weyerhaeuser conceded prior to trial that it was a liable party with respect to the site. In September 2013, an opinion and order was issued in the suit. The order concluded that the Company (as the successor to St. Regis) was not an “operator,” but was an “owner,” of the mill at issue during a portion of the relevant period and is therefore liable under CERCLA. The order also determined that NCR is a liable party as an "arranger for disposal" of PCBs in waste paper that was de-inked and recycled by mills along the Kalamazoo River. The order did not address the Company's responsibility, if any, for past or future costs. The parties’ responsibility, including that of the Company, was the subject of a second trial, which was concluded in late 2015. A decision has not been rendered and it is unclear to what extent the Court will address responsibility for future costs in that decision. We are unable to predict the outcome or estimate our maximum reasonably possible loss. However, we do not believe that any material loss is probable.

Harris County: International Paper and McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation (MIMC), a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. (WMI), are PRPs at the San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site in Harris County, Texas. The PRPs have been actively participating in the activities at the site. In September 2016, the EPA issued a proposed remedial action plan (PRAP) for the site, which identified the preferred remedy as the removal of the contaminated material currently protected by an armored cap. In addition, the EPA selected a preferred remedy for the separate southern impoundment that requires offsite disposal. In January 2017, the PRPs submitted comments on the PRAP.

On October 11, 2017, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting the final remedy for the site: removal and relocation of the waste material from both the northern and southern impoundments. The EPA did not specify the methods or practices needed to perform this work. On October 25, 2017, the PRPs received a letter from the EPA inviting participation in the remedial design component of the EPA’s selected remedy for the site, and the Company plans to participate in this remedial design process to determine if and how the remedy can be accomplished. We expect this process will include additional studies to determine feasible alternatives and costs to complete this final remedy. Consequently, while additional losses are probable as a result of the selected remedy, we are currently unable to determine any adjustment to our immaterial recorded liability. It is reasonably possible that additional losses could be material as the remedial design process with the EPA continues over the coming quarters.

International Paper and MIMC/WMI are also defending an additional lawsuit related to the site brought by approximately 600 individuals who allege property damage and personal injury. Because this case is still in the discovery phase, it is premature to predict the outcome or to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred.

Antitrust

Containerboard: On June 27, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the class plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Kleen Products LLC et al. v. International Paper Co. et al. (N.D. Ill.) which was filed in September 2010, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Eight containerboard producers, including the Company, Temple-Inland and Weyerhaeuser Company (the "Released Defendants"), were named as defendants in the lawsuit which alleges a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In particular, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products during the period from February 15, 2004, through November 8, 2010. Four similar complaints were filed and consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. In March 2015, the District Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from the defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the class period.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, on August 1, 2017, the Company paid $354 million into a settlement fund in return for a dismissal of the Released Defendants and release of all claims and alleged damages asserted against the Released Defendants in the lawsuit or that are related to or arise from the direct purchase of containerboard products from the Released Defendants by the class members from the beginning of time up to preliminary approval of the settlement agreement by the district court, which occurred on July 13, 2017. Any attorneys' fees awarded by the district court and all costs of notice and claims administration will be paid from the settlement fund. On October 17, 2017, the district court granted final approval of the settlement agreement and thus the release is now effective as to all class members.

In June 2016, a lawsuit captioned Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Packaging Corporation of America (W.D. Wis.), was filed in federal court in Wisconsin against ten defendants, including the Company, Temple-Inland and Weyerhaeuser Company. The Ashley Furniture lawsuit closely tracks the allegations found in the Kleen Products complaint, alleging a practically identical civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, but also asserts Wisconsin state antitrust claims. 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. No class certification materials have been filed to date in the Tennessee action.

The Company continues to dispute the allegations made in the Ashley Furniture and Tennessee lawsuits and vigorously defend each. At this time, however, because the actions are in a preliminary stage, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

Contract

Signature: In August 2014, a lawsuit captioned Signature Industrial Services LLC et al. v. International Paper Company was filed in state court in Texas. The Signature lawsuit arises out of approximately $1 million in disputed invoices related to the installation of new equipment at the Company's Orange, Texas mill. In addition to the invoices in dispute, Signature and its president allege consequential damages arising from the Company's nonpayment of those invoices. The lawsuit was tried before a jury in Beaumont, Texas, in May 2017. On June 1, 2017, the jury returned a verdict awarding approximately $125 million in damages to the plaintiffs. The verdict will not be final until post-trial motions are decided, and the Company will appeal the final judgment thereafter. The Company has numerous and strong bases for appeal, and we believe we will prevail on appeal. Because post-trial proceedings are in a preliminary stage, we are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, but we expect the amount of any loss to be immaterial.

Tax

On October 16, 2015, the Company was notified of a $110 million tax assessment issued by the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil (State) for tax years 2011 through 2013. The assessment pertained to invoices issued by the Company related to the sale of paper to the editorial segment, which is exempt from the payment of ICMS value-added tax. During the second quarter of 2016, the Company received a favorable first instance judgment vacating the State's assessment. During the third quarter of 2017, the Company received a favorable decision on the second instance judgment after the State appealed the first instance. In October of 2017, the Company was notified the State will not appeal the second instance judgment, making the decision final and canceling the tax assessment.

General

The Company is involved in various other inquiries, administrative proceedings and litigation relating to environmental and safety matters, personal injury, labor and employment, contracts, sales of property, intellectual property 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 these 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 financial statements.