11. Commitments and Contingencies

Environmental Matters

The Company's operations involve the use, handling, processing, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials. The Company is subject to extensive environmental regulation at the federal, state and local levels as well as foreign laws and regulations, and is therefore exposed to the risk of claims for environmental remediation or restoration. In addition, violations of environmental laws or permits may result in restrictions being imposed on operating activities, substantial fines, penalties, damages or other costs, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Environmental Institution of Paraná IAP—On August 10, 2005, the Environmental Institute of Paraná (IAP), an environmental agency in the State of Paraná, provided Hexion Quimica Industria, the Company's Brazilian subsidiary, with notice of an environmental assessment in the amount of 12 Brazilian reais. The assessment related to alleged environmental damages to the Paranagua Bay caused in November 2004 from an explosion on a shipping vessel carrying methanol purchased by the Company. The investigations performed by the public authorities have not identified any actions of the Company that contributed to or caused the accident. The Company responded to the assessment by filing a request to have it cancelled and by obtaining an injunction precluding execution of the assessment pending adjudication of the issue. In November 2010, the Court denied the Company's request to cancel the assessment and lifted the injunction that had been issued. The Company responded to the ruling by filing an appeal in the State of Paraná Court of Appeals. In March 2012, the Company was informed that the Court of Appeals has denied the Company's appeal. The Company continues to believe that the assessment is invalid and it plans to appeal the Appellate Court's decision to the federal appellate system in Brazil. Because the Company continues to believe it has strong defenses against the validity of the assessment, it does not believe that a loss is probable. At December 31, 2011, the amount of the assessment, including tax, penalties, monetary correction and interest, is 27 Brazilian reais, or approximately $14.

The following table summarizes all probable environmental remediation, indemnification and restoration liabilities, including related legal expenses, at December 31, 2011 and 2010.


	Number of Sites				Liability				Range of Reasonably Possible Costs
Site Description	December 31, 2011		December 31, 2010		December 31, 2011		December 31, 2010		Low		High
Geismar, LA		1		1	$	17	$	17	$	10	$	24
Superfund and offsite landfills – allocated share:
Less than 1%		31		29		1		1		1		2
Equal to or greater than 1%		12		12		7		7		5		12
Currently-owned		12		19		5		6		4		12
Formerly-owned:
Remediation		10		10		1		1		1		10
Monitoring only		5		6		1		1		—		1

		71		77	$	32	$	33	$	21	$	61

These amounts include estimates for unasserted claims that the Company believes are probable of loss and reasonably estimable. The estimate of the range of reasonably possible costs is less certain than the estimates upon which the liabilities are based. To establish the upper end of a range, assumptions less favorable to the Company among the range of reasonably possible outcomes were used. As with any estimate, if facts or circumstances change, the final outcome could differ materially from these estimates. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, $6 and $10, respectively, has been included in Other current liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets with the remaining amount included in Other long-term liabilities.

Following is a discussion of the Company's environmental liabilities and the related assumptions at December 31, 2011:

Geismar, LA Site—The Company formerly owned a basic chemicals and polyvinyl chloride business that was taken public as Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating Limited Partnership ("BCPOLP") in 1987. The Company retained a 1% interest, the general partner interest and the liability for certain environmental matters after BCPOLP's formation. Under a Settlement Agreement approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware among the Company, BCPOLP, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, the Company agreed to perform certain of BCPOLP's obligations for soil and groundwater contamination at BCPOLP's Geismar, Louisiana site. The Company bears the sole responsibility for these obligations because there are no other potentially responsible parties ("PRP") or third parties from whom the Company could seek reimbursement.

A groundwater pump and treat system to remove contaminants is operational, and natural attenuation studies are proceeding. If closure procedures and remediation systems prove to be inadequate, or if additional contamination is discovered, costs that would approach the higher end of the range of possible outcomes could result.

Due to the long-term nature of the project, the reliability of timing and the ability to estimate remediation payments, a portion of this liability was recorded at its net present value, assuming a 3% discount rate and a time period of 30 years. The range of possible outcomes is discounted in a similar manner. The undiscounted liability, which is expected to be paid over the next 30 years, is approximately $24. Over the next five years, the Company expects to make ratable payments totaling $6.

Superfund Sites and Offsite Landfills—The Company is currently involved in environmental remediation activities at a number of sites for which it has been notified that it is, or may be, a PRP under the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act or similar state "superfund" laws. The Company anticipates approximately $3 of the estimated liability for these sites will be paid within the next five years, with the remainder over the next fifteen years. The Company generally does not bear a significant level of responsibility for these sites, and as a result, has little control over the costs and timing of cash flows.

The Company's ultimate liability will depend on many factors including its share of waste volume, the financial viability of other PRPs, the remediation methods and technology used, the amount of time necessary to accomplish remediation and the availability of insurance coverage. The range of possible outcomes takes into account the maturity of each project, resulting in a more narrow range as the project progresses. To estimate both its current reserves for environmental remediation at these sites and the possible range of additional costs, the Company has not assumed that it will bear the entire cost of remediation of every site to the exclusion of other known PRPs who may be jointly and severally liable. The Company has limited information to assess the viability of other PRPs and their probable contribution on a per site basis. The Company's insurance provides very limited, if any, coverage for these environmental matters.

Sites Under Current Ownership—The Company is conducting environmental remediation at a number of locations that it currently owns, of which eight sites are no longer in operation. As the Company is performing a portion of the remediation on a voluntary basis, it has some control over the costs to be incurred and the timing of cash flows. The Company expects to pay approximately $5 of these liabilities within the next five years, with the remainder over the next five years. The factors influencing the ultimate outcome include the methods of remediation elected, the conclusions and assessment of site studies remaining to be completed, and the time period required to complete the work. No other parties are responsible for remediation at these sites.

Formerly-Owned Sites—The Company is conducting environmental remediation at a number of locations that it formerly owned. The final costs to the Company will depend on the method of remediation chosen and the level of participation of third parties.

In addition, the Company is responsible for a number of sites that require monitoring where no additional remediation is expected. The Company has established reserves for costs related to these sites. Payment of the majority of these liabilities is anticipated to occur over the next five years. The ultimate cost to the Company will be influenced by fluctuations in projected monitoring periods or by findings that are different than anticipated.

Indemnifications— In connection with the acquisition of certain of the Company's operating businesses, the Company has been indemnified by the sellers against certain liabilities of the acquired businesses, including liabilities relating to both known and unknown environmental contamination arising prior to the date of the purchase. The indemnifications may be subject to certain exceptions and limitations, deductibles and indemnity caps. While it is reasonably possible that some costs could be incurred, except for those sites identified above, the Company has inadequate information to allow it to estimate a potential range of liability, if any.

Non-Environmental Legal Matters

The Company is involved in various legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business and had reserves of $7 and $11 at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, for all non-environmental legal defense costs incurred and settlement costs that it believes are probable and estimable. At December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, $3 and $5, respectively, have been included in Other current liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets with the remaining amount included in Other long-term liabilities.

Following is a discussion of significant non-environmental legal proceedings:

Brazil Tax Claim—In 1992, the State of Sao Paulo Administrative Tax Bureau issued an assessment against the Company's Brazilian subsidiary claiming that excise taxes were owed on certain intercompany loans made for centralized cash management purposes. These loans were characterized by the Tax Bureau as intercompany sales. Since that time, management and the Tax Bureau have held discussions and the subsidiary filed an administrative appeal seeking cancellation of the assessment. The Administrative Court upheld the assessment in December 2001. In 2002, the subsidiary filed a second appeal with the highest-level Administrative Court, again seeking cancellation of the assessment. In February 2007, the highest-level Administrative Court upheld the assessment. The Company requested a review of this decision. On April 23, 2008, the Brazilian Administrative Tax Tribunal issued its final decision upholding the assessment against the subsidiary. The Company filed an Annulment action in the Brazilian Judicial Courts in May 2008 along with a request for an injunction to suspend the tax collection. The injunction was denied but the Annulment action is being pursued. The Company has pledged certain properties and assets in Brazil during the pendency of the Annulment action in lieu of paying the assessment. In September 2010, in the Company's favor, the Court adopted its appointed expert's report finding that the transactions in question were intercompany loans. Sao Paulo has mandatory appeal rights but the Court's decision based on the facts is likely to be upheld and therefore, the Company does not believe a loss contingency is probable. At December 31, 2011 the amount of the assessment, including tax, penalties, monetary correction and interest, is 68 Brazilian reais, or approximately $37.

Formosa Plant—Several lawsuits were filed in Sangamon County, Illinois in May 2006 against the Company on behalf of individuals injured or killed in an explosion at a Formosa Plastics Corporation ("Formosa") plant in Illiopolis, Illinois that occurred on April 23, 2004. The Company sold the facility in 1987. The facility was operated by BCPOLP until it was sold to Formosa out of BCPOLP's bankrupt estate in 2002. In March 2007, an independent federal agency found that operator errors caused the explosion, but that current and former owners could have implemented systems to minimize the impacts from these errors. In March 2008, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment. On May 19, 2011, four of the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their claims against the Company. On August 15, 2011, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment against the remaining plaintiffs, and it entered an order dismissing the Company from the lawsuit.

Hillsborough County—The Company is named in a lawsuit filed on July 12, 2004 in Hillsborough County, Florida Circuit Court, for an animal feed supplement processing site formerly operated by the Company and sold in 1980. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of multiple residents of Hillsborough County living near the site and it alleges various injuries from exposure to toxic chemicals. The Company does not have adequate information from which to estimate a potential range of liability, if any. The court dismissed a similar lawsuit brought on behalf of a class of plaintiffs in November 2005.

Other Legal Matters—The Company is involved in various other product liability, commercial and employment litigation, personal injury, property damage and other legal proceedings in addition to those described above, including actions that allege harm caused by products the Company has allegedly made or used, containing silica, vinyl chloride monomer and asbestos. The Company does not believe that it has a material exposure for these claims and believes it has adequate reserves and insurance to cover pending and foreseeable future claims.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments

The Company has entered into contractual agreements with Shell and other third parties for the supply of site services, utilities, materials and facilities and for operation and maintenance services necessary to operate certain of the Company's facilities on a stand-alone basis. The duration of the contracts range from less than one year to 20 years, depending on the nature of services. These contracts may be terminated by either party under certain conditions as provided for in the respective agreements; generally, 90 days notice is required for short-term contracts and three years notice is required for longer-term contracts (generally those contracts in excess of five years). Contractual pricing generally includes a fixed and variable component.

In addition, the Company has entered into contractual agreements with Shell and other third parties to purchase feedstocks or other services. The terms of these agreements vary from one to ten years and may be extended at the Company's request and are cancelable by either party as provided for in each agreement. Feedstock prices are based on market prices less negotiated volume discounts or cost input formulas.

The Company is required to make minimum annual payments under these contracts as follows:


Year	Minimum Annual Purchase Commitments
2012	$	415
2013		280
2014		102
2015		43
2016		31
2017 and beyond		110

Total minimum payments		981
Less: Amount representing interest		(42	)

Present value of minimum payments	$	939

Customer Contract Termination

In the second quarter of 2011, the Company agreed to terminate an operator contract (the "Contract") with a customer in response to the customer's desire to restructure certain of its manufacturing capacity. The customer agreed to pay the Company a one-time compensation payment of €16, or approximately $23, which the Company has since collected. The compensation payment represents a contract termination penalty and payment for all unpaid minimum obligations incurred by the customer to date under the Contract. The Company recorded a net gain of $21 for the year ended December 31, 2011 related to the termination of the Contract, which represents the full compensation payment net of the Company's estimated cost to disable the related manufacturing assets. The amount is recorded in Other operating income, net in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.