NOTE 11 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

OPERATING LEASES

Certain property, machinery and equipment are leased under cancelable and non-cancelable agreements.

At December 31, 2017, total future minimum commitments under existing non-cancelable operating leases were as follows:



In millions	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		Thereafter
Lease obligations	$	130	$	102	$	77	$	53	$	37	$	141

Rent expense was $157 million, $150 million and $157 million for 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

GUARANTEES

In connection with sales of businesses, property, equipment, forestlands and other assets, International Paper commonly makes representations and warranties relating to such businesses or assets, and may agree to indemnify buyers with respect to tax and environmental liabilities, breaches of representations and warranties, and other matters. Where liabilities for such matters are determined to be probable and subject to reasonable estimation, accrued liabilities are recorded at the time of sale as a cost of the transaction.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

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 consolidated financial statements when they become probable and reasonably estimable. International Paper has estimated the probable liability associated with these matters to be approximately $128 million ($141 million undiscounted) in the aggregate as of December 31, 2017. Other than as described below, completion of required remedial actions is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated 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 $47 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 reserve referenced above. In October 2012, the Natural Resource Trustees for this site provided notice to International Paper and other PRPs of their intent to perform a Natural Resource Damage Assessment. It is premature to predict the outcome of the 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 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, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order to the Company and other PRPs to perform the remedy. The unilateral administrative order has not yet become effective and the Company is evaluating its response.


•	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 and agreed along with two other parties 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.

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 and share the costs of these activities. 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. While the EPA’s selected remedy was accompanied by a cost estimate of approximately $115 million, we do not believe that estimate provides a reasonable basis for accrual under GAAP because the estimate was based on a technological method for performing the work that we believe is not feasible. 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, and we have accrued reasonably estimable costs related to this process. Subsequent to the issuance of the ROD, there have been several meetings between the EPA and the PRPs, and the Company anticipates working with the EPA and other PRPs to develop the remedial design, including adaptive management techniques and a predesign investigation expected to commence in the first quarter of 2018. The objectives of the predesign investigation include filling data gaps (including but not limited to post-Hurricane Harvey technical data generated prior to the ROD and not incorporated into the selected remedy), refining areas and volumes of materials to be addressed, determining if the excavation remedy is able to be implemented in a manner protective of human health and the environment, and investigating potential impacts to infrastructure in the vicinity. The Company has identified a number of concerns and uncertainties regarding the remedy described in the ROD and regarding the EPA’s estimates for the costs and time required to implement the selected remedy. Because of ongoing questions regarding cost effectiveness, technical feasibility, timing and other technical data, it is uncertain how the ROD will be implemented. 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 remains 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, in any, which may be incurred.

Antitrust

Containerboard: 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 now-settled Kleen Products litigation, alleging a practically identical civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (in particular, that defendants conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products), 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 disputes the allegations made in the Ashley Furniture and Tennessee lawsuits and is vigorously defending 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 Court issued a judgment on December 14, 2017, awarding the plaintiffs a total of approximately $137 million in actual and consequential damages, fees, costs and pre-judgment interest, and awarding post-judgment interest. The judgment 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.

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 consolidated financial statements.