Note 16—Commitments and contingencies:

Lead pigment litigation—NL

NL’s former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint. NL, other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint (together, the “former pigment manufacturers”), and the Lead Industries Association (“LIA”), which discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for educational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seek compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages are generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages are unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law. A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings or a trial verdict in favor of either the defendants or the plaintiffs.

NL believes that these actions are without merit, and NL intends to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and to defend against all actions vigorously. NL does not believe it is probable that it has incurred any liability with respect to all of the lead pigment litigation cases to which NL is a party, and liability to us that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because:

•

NL has never settled any of the market share, intentional tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, or statutory cases,

•

no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been entered against NL, and

•

NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a twenty-year period for which NL was previously a party and for which NL has been dismissed without any finding of liability.

Accordingly, neither we nor NL have accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, or those asserted as class actions. In addition, we have determined that liability to us which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated because there is no prior history of a loss of this nature on which an estimate could be made and there is no substantive information available upon which an estimate could be based.

In one of these lead pigment cases, in April 2000 NL was served with a complaint in County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657) brought by a number of California government entities against the former pigment manufacturers, the LIA and certain paint manufacturers. The County of Santa Clara sought to recover compensatory damages for funds the plaintiffs have expended or would in the future expend for medical treatment, educational expenses, abatement or other costs due to exposure to, or potential exposure to, lead paint, disgorgement of profit, and punitive damages. In July 2003, the trial judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all remaining claims. Plaintiffs appealed and the intermediate appellate court reinstated public nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and fraud claims in March 2006. A fourth amended complaint was filed in March 2011 on behalf of The People of California by the County Attorneys of Alameda, Ventura, Solano, San Mateo, Los Angeles and Santa Clara, and the City Attorneys of San Francisco, San Diego and Oakland. That complaint alleged that the presence of lead paint created a public nuisance in each of the prosecuting jurisdictions and sought its abatement. In July and August 2013, the case was tried. In January 2014, the Judge issued a judgment finding NL, The Sherwin Williams Company and ConAgra Grocery Products Company jointly and severally liable for the abatement of lead paint in pre-1980 homes, and ordered the defendants to pay an aggregate $1.15 billion to the people of the State of California to fund such abatement. In February 2014, NL filed a motion for a new trial, and in March 2014 the court denied the motion. Subsequently in March 2014, we filed a notice of appeal with the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California and the appeal is proceeding with the appellate court. NL believes that this judgment is inconsistent with California law and is unsupported by the evidence, and we will defend vigorously against all claims.

The Santa Clara case is unusual in that this is the second time that an adverse verdict in the lead pigment litigation has been entered against NL (the first adverse verdict against NL was ultimately overturned on appeal). We have concluded that the likelihood of a loss in this case has not reached a standard of “probable” as contemplated by ASC 450, given (i) the substantive, substantial and meritorious grounds on which the adverse verdict in the Santa Clara case will be appealed, (ii) the uniqueness of the Santa Clara verdict (i.e. no final, non-appealable verdicts have ever been rendered against NL, or any of the other former lead pigment manufacturers, based on the public nuisance theory of liability or otherwise), and (iii) the rejection of the public nuisance theory of liability as it relates to lead pigment matters in many other jurisdictions (no jurisdiction in which a plaintiff has asserted a public nuisance theory of liability has ever successfully been upheld). In addition, liability that may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated, as NL continues to have no basis on which an estimate of liability could be made, as discussed above. However, as with any legal proceeding, there is no assurance that any appeal would be successful, and it is reasonably possible, based on the outcome of the appeals process, that NL may in the future incur some liability resulting in the recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position and liquidity.

New cases may continue to be filed against NL. We cannot assure you that we will not incur liability in the future in respect of any of the pending or possible litigation in view of the inherent uncertainties involved in court and jury rulings. In the future, if new information regarding such matters becomes available to us (such as a final, non-appealable adverse verdict against us or otherwise ultimately being found liable with respect to such matters), at that time we would consider such information in evaluating any remaining cases then-pending against us as to whether it might then have become probable we have incurred liability with respect to these matters, and whether such liability, if any, could have become reasonably estimable. The resolution of any of these cases could result in the recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse impact on our net income for the interim or annual period during which such liability is recognized and a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition and liquidity.

Environmental matters and litigation

Our operations are governed by various environmental laws and regulations. Certain of our businesses are and have been engaged in the handling, manufacture or use of substances or compounds that may be considered toxic or hazardous within the meaning of applicable environmental laws and regulations. As with other companies engaged in similar businesses, certain of our past and current operations and products have the potential to cause environmental or other damage. We have implemented and continue to implement various policies and programs in an effort to minimize these risks. Our policy is to maintain compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations at all of our plants and to strive to improve environmental performance. From time to time, we may be subject to environmental regulatory enforcement under U.S. and non-U.S. statutes, the resolution of which typically involves the establishment of compliance programs. It is possible that future developments, such as stricter requirements of environmental laws and enforcement policies, could adversely affect our production, handling, use, storage, transportation, sale or disposal of such substances. We believe that all of our facilities are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws.

Certain properties and facilities used in NL’s former operations, including divested primary and secondary lead smelters and former mining locations, are the subject of civil litigation, administrative proceedings or investigations arising under federal and state environmental laws and common law. Additionally, in connection with past operating practices, we are currently involved as a defendant, potentially responsible party (“PRP”) or both, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“CERCLA”), and similar state laws in various governmental and private actions associated with waste disposal sites, mining locations, and facilities that we or our predecessors, our subsidiaries or their predecessors currently or previously owned, operated or used, certain of which are on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Superfund National Priorities List or similar state lists. These proceedings seek cleanup costs, damages for personal injury or property damage and/or damages for injury to natural resources. Certain of these proceedings involve claims for substantial amounts. Although we may be jointly and severally liable for these costs, in most cases we are only one of a number of PRPs who may also be jointly and severally liable, and among whom costs may be shared or allocated. In addition, we are occasionally named as a party in a number of personal injury lawsuits filed in various jurisdictions alleging claims related to environmental conditions alleged to have resulted from our operations.

Obligations associated with environmental remediation and related matters are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons including the:

•

complexity and differing interpretations of governmental regulations,

•

number of PRPs and their ability or willingness to fund such allocation of costs,

•

financial capabilities of the PRPs and the allocation of costs among them,

•

solvency of other PRPs,

•

multiplicity of possible solutions,

•

number of years of investigatory, remedial and monitoring activity required,

•

uncertainty over the extent, if any, to which our former operations might have contributed to the conditions allegedly giving rise to such personal injury, property damage, natural resource and related claims, and

•

number of years between former operations and notice of claims and lack of information and documents about the former operations.

In addition, the imposition of more stringent standards or requirements under environmental laws or regulations, new developments or changes regarding site cleanup costs or the allocation of costs among PRPs, solvency of other PRPs, the results of future testing and analysis undertaken with respect to certain sites or a determination that we are potentially responsible for the release of hazardous substances at other sites, could cause our expenditures to exceed our current estimates. We cannot assure you that actual costs will not exceed accrued amounts or the upper end of the range for sites for which estimates have been made, and we cannot assure you that costs will not be incurred for sites where no estimates presently can be made. Further, additional environmental and related matters may arise in the future. If we were to incur any future liability, this could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements, results of operations and liquidity.

We record liabilities related to environmental remediation and related matters (including costs associated with damages for personal injury or property damage and/or damages for injury to natural resources) when estimated future expenditures are probable and reasonably estimable. We adjust such accruals as further information becomes available to us or as circumstances change. Unless the amounts and timing of such estimated future expenditures are fixed and reasonably determinable, we generally do not discount estimated future expenditures to their present value due to the uncertainty of the timing of the payout. We recognize recoveries of costs from other parties, if any, as assets when their receipt is deemed probable. At December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, receivables for recoveries were not significant.

We do not know and cannot estimate the exact time frame over which we will make payments for our accrued environmental and related costs. The timing of payments depends upon a number of factors, including but not limited to the timing of the actual remediation process; which in turn depends on factors outside of our control. At each balance sheet date, we estimate the amount of our accrued environmental and related costs which we expect to pay within the next twelve months, and we classify this estimate as a current liability. We classify the remaining accrued environmental costs as a noncurrent liability.

The table below presents a summary of the activity in our accrued environmental costs during the first three months of 2017 are presented below.

	Amount
	(In millions)
Balance at the beginning of the year	$	122.6
Additions charged to expense, net		3.1
Payments, net		(.9	)
Currency and other		.1
Balance at the end of period	$	124.9
Amounts recognized in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at the end of the period:
Current liabilities	$	14.7
Noncurrent liabilities		110.2
Total	$	124.9

NL – On a quarterly basis, NL evaluates the potential range of its liability for environmental remediation and related costs at sites where it has been named as a PRP or defendant. At March 31, 2017, NL had accrued approximately $119 million related to approximately 41 sites associated with remediation and related matters that it believes are at the present time and/or in their current phase reasonably estimable. The upper end of the range of reasonably possible costs to NL for remediation and related matters for which we believe it is possible to estimate costs is approximately $160 million, including the amount currently accrued.

NL believes that it is not reasonably possible to estimate the range of costs for certain sites. At March 31, 2017, there were approximately 5 sites for which NL is not currently able to estimate a range of costs. For these sites, generally the investigation is in the early stages, and NL is unable to determine whether or not NL actually had any association with the site, the nature of its responsibility, if any, for the contamination at the site and the extent of contamination at and cost to remediate the site. The timing and availability of information on these sites is dependent on events outside of our control, such as when the party alleging liability provides information to us. At certain of these previously inactive sites, NL has received general and special notices of liability from the EPA and/or state agencies alleging that NL, sometimes with other PRPs, are liable for past and future costs of remediating environmental contamination allegedly caused by former operations. These notifications may assert that NL, along with any other alleged PRPs, are liable for past and/or future clean-up costs. As further information becomes available to us for any of these sites which would allow us to estimate a range of costs, we would at that time adjust our accruals. Any such adjustment could result in the recognition of an accrual that would have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements, results of operations and liquidity.

WCS – Effective December 2015, WCS entered an Agreed Order with the TCEQ with regard to the disposition of certain U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) waste currently stored at the WCS facility. WCS entered into the Agreed Order as the licensee of the storage facility, and DOE entered into a similar order with the TCEQ as the owner of the waste. WCS asserts that the alleged violations set forth in the orders are due to the acts and omissions of DOE and its contractor. WCS expects to work with TCEQ and DOE to develop a compliance plan regarding the stored waste. While the cost of the compliance plan is not currently estimable, the amount of such compliance costs could be material. On October 21, 2015 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) Office of Investigations commenced an investigation of WCS’s handling of the DOE waste described above. WCS cooperated fully, and the matter was concluded with no formal demands or claims by the NRC. WCS believes the DOE or its contractor is required to reimburse WCS for its cost to comply with the Agreed Order and the NRC investigation under the terms of the storage contract and pursuant to law, and as such we believe the cost of compliance with the Agreed Order and the NRC investigation should not have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. DOE has generally paid for the costs to comply. On April 28, 2016 WCS filed with the DOE an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act related to this matter.

Other – We have also accrued approximately $5.6 million at March 31, 2017 for other environmental cleanup matters. This accrual is near the upper end of the range of our estimate of reasonably possible costs for such matters.

Insurance coverage claims

We are involved in certain legal proceedings with a number of our former insurance carriers regarding the nature and extent of the carriers’ obligations to us under insurance policies with respect to certain lead pigment and asbestos lawsuits. The issue of whether insurance coverage for defense costs or indemnity or both will be found to exist for our lead pigment and asbestos litigation depends upon a variety of factors and we cannot assure you that such insurance coverage will be available.

We have agreements with certain of our former insurance carriers pursuant to which the carriers reimburse us for a portion of our future lead pigment litigation defense costs, and one such carrier reimburses us for a portion of our future asbestos litigation defense costs. We are not able to determine how much we will ultimately recover from these carriers for defense costs incurred by us because of certain issues that arise regarding which defense costs qualify for reimbursement. While we continue to seek additional insurance recoveries, we do not know if we will be successful in obtaining reimbursement for either defense costs or indemnity. Accordingly, we recognize insurance recoveries in income only when receipt of the recovery is probable and we are able to reasonably estimate the amount of the recovery.

For additional discussion of certain litigation involving NL and certain of its former insurance carriers, please refer to our 2016 Annual Report.

Other litigation

NL—– NL has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by NL. There are 103 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 588 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,687 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts’ medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters. Based on information available to us, including:

•

facts concerning historical operations,

•

the rate of new claims,

•

the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and

•

our prior experience in the defense of these matters,

We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us.

Kronos— In March 2013, Kronos was served with the complaint, Los Gatos Mercantile, Inc. d/b/a Los Gatos Ace Hardware, et al v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:13-cv-01180-SI). The defendants include Kronos, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Huntsman International LLC and Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. As amended by plaintiffs’ third amended complaint (Harrison, Jan, et al v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al), plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of indirect purchasers of titanium dioxide in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Tennessee that indirectly purchased titanium dioxide from one or more of the defendants on or after March 1, 2002. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which titanium dioxide was sold in the United States and engaged in other anticompetitive conduct. The case is now proceeding in the trial court. We believe the action is without merit, will deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and intend to defend against the action vigorously. Based on our quarterly status evaluation of this case, we have determined that it is not reasonably possible that a loss that is material has been incurred in this case.

In September 2016, Kronos was served with the complaint, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. E.I. Dupont Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-04865). The defendants include Kronos, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Huntsman International LLC and Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. The plaintiff alleges that it indirectly purchased titanium dioxide from one or more of the defendants on or after March 1, 2002. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which titanium dioxide was sold in the United States and engaged in other anticompetitive conduct. The case is now proceeding in the trial court. We believe the action is without merit, will deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and intend to defend against the action vigorously. Based on our quarterly status evaluation of this case, we have determined that it is not reasonably possible that a loss has been incurred in this case.

For a description of the anti-trust action filed by the United States Department of Justice with respect to the sales of WCS, see Note 3.

Other—In addition to the litigation described above, we and our affiliates are involved in various other environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to our present and former businesses. In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items, although we do not expect any additional material insurance coverage for our environmental claims.

We currently believe that the disposition of all of these various other claims and disputes, individually or in the aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the accruals already provided.