Our former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint. We, 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 A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn.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.

We believe that these actions are without merit, and we intend to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and to defend against all actions vigorously. Other than with respect to the Santa Clara, California public nuisance case discussed below, we do not believe it is probable that we have incurred any liability with respect to all of the lead pigment litigation cases to which we are a party, and with respect to all such lead pigment litigation cases to which we are a party, other than with respect to the Santa Clara case discussed below, we believe liability to us that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because:

Accordingly, other than with respect to the Santa Clara case discussed below, we have not 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 other than the Santa Clara case noted below. In addition, we have determined that liability to us which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time 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 we were 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 trial court judge issued a judgment finding us, 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. The trial court’s judgment also found that to the extent any abatement funds remained unspent after four years, such funds were to be returned to the defendants. In February 2014, we filed a motion for a new trial, and in March 2014 the trial 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. On November 14, 2017, the Sixth District Court of Appeal issued its opinion, upholding the trial court’s judgment, except that it reversed the portion of the judgment requiring abatement of homes built between 1951 and 1980 which significantly reduced the number of homes subject to the abatement order. In addition, the appellate court ordered the case be remanded to the trial court to recalculate the amount of the abatement fund, to limit it to the amount necessary to cover the cost of investigating and remediating pre-1951 homes, and to hold an evidentiary hearing to appoint a suitable receiver. In addition, the appellate court found that we and the other defendants had the right to seek recovery from liable parties that contributed to a hazardous condition at a particular property. Subsequently, we and the other defendants filed a Petition with the California Supreme Court seeking its review of a number of issues. On February 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied such petition.

The Santa Clara case is unusual in that this is the second time that an adverse verdict in a public nuisance lead pigment case has been entered against us (the first adverse verdict against us was ultimately overturned on appeal). Given the appellate court’s November 2017 ruling, and the denial of an appeal by the California Supreme Court, we previously concluded that the likelihood of a loss in this case has reached a standard of “probable” as contemplated by ASC 450.

Under the remand ordered by the appellate court, the trial court was required to, among other things, (i) recalculate the amount of the abatement fund, excluding remediation of homes built between 1951 and 1980, (ii) hold an evidentiary hearing to appoint a suitable receiver for the abatement fund and (iii) enter an order or orders setting forth its rulings on these issues. We believe any party will have a right to appeal any of these new decisions to be made by the trial court from the remand of the case. Several uncertainties will still exist with respect to the new decisions to be made by the trial court from the remand of the case, including the following:

In May 2018, we and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which, as supplemented, the plaintiffs would be paid an aggregate of $80 million, in return for which we would be dismissed from the case with prejudice and all pending and future claims, causes of action, cross-complaints, actions or proceedings against us and our affiliates for indemnity, contribution, reimbursement or declaratory relief in respect to the case would be barred, discharged and enjoined as a matter of applicable law. Of such $80 million, $65 million would be paid by us and $15 million would be provided by one of our former insurance carriers that has previously placed such amount on deposit with the trial court in satisfaction of potential liability such former carrier might have with respect to the case under certain insurance policies we had with such former carrier. Of such $65 million which would be paid by us, $45 million would be paid upon approval of the terms of the settlement, and the remaining $20 million would be paid in five annual installments beginning four years from such approval ($6 million for the first installment, $5 million for the second installment and $3 million for each of the third, fourth and fifth installments). The settlement agreement is subject to a number of conditions including the trial court’s approval of the terms of the settlement (which trial court approval includes a determination that such settlement agreement meets the standards for a “good faith” settlement under applicable California law). The other defendants filed motions with the trial court objecting to the terms of the settlement.

With all of the uncertainties that exist with respect to the new decisions to be made by the trial court from the remand of the case, as noted above, we had previously concluded that the amount of such loss could not be reasonably estimated (nor could a range of loss be reasonably estimated). However, the terms of the settlement agreement entered into by us and the plaintiffs in May 2018, as supplemented, provides evidence that the amount of the loss to us could be reasonably estimated (and provides evidence of the low end of a range of loss to us). For financial reporting purposes, we discounted the five payments aggregating $20 million to be paid in installments to their estimated net present value, using a discount rate of 3.0% per annum. Such net present value is $17 million, and we would begin to accrete such present value amount upon approval of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, in the second quarter of 2018 we recognized a net $62 million pre-tax charge with respect to this matter ($45 million for the amount to be paid by us upon approval of the terms of the settlement and $17 million for the net present value of the five payments aggregating $20 million to be paid by us in installments beginning four years from such approval), representing the net amount we would pay in full settlement of our liability under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement. For purposes of our Consolidated Balance Sheet, we have presented the aggregate $45 million that would be paid to the plaintiffs upon approval of the terms of the settlement and the $15 million that would be paid to the plaintiffs from the amount placed on deposit with the trial court by one of our former insurance carriers (for a total of $60 million) as a current liability, $17 million for the net present value of the five payments aggregating $20 million to be paid by us in installments beginning four years from such approval as a noncurrent liability and the $15 million portion of such aggregate $80 million undiscounted amount which would be funded from the amount placed on deposit with the trial court by one of our former insurance carriers as a current insurance recovery receivable.

In July 2018, we and the other defendants filed appeals with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking its review of two federal issues in the trial court’s original judgment. Review by the U.S. Supreme Court is discretionary, and in October 2018 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petitions for the Court to hear such appeals.

In September 2018, following a case-management hearing regarding the recalculated abatement fund amount held in August 2018, the trial court issued an order setting the recalculated amount of the abatement fund at $409 million. Also in September 2018, the trial court denied approval of the settlement agreement, finding among other things that the settlement agreement did not meet the standards for a “good faith” settlement under applicable California law.

Subsequently in October 2018, we filed an appeal of the trial court’s denial of approval of the settlement agreement with the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California, asserting among other things that in denying such approval the trial court made several legal errors in applying applicable California law to the terms of the settlement. The plaintiffs filed a brief in support of our appeal. The appellate court has discretion whether to hear such appeal, and the appellate court has not yet issued its decision as to whether it will hear such appeal. There can be no assurance that the appellate court will agree to hear such appeal, or if it agrees to hear such appeal, that it would rule in favor of us and approve the settlement agreement. We continue to believe the settlement agreement satisfies the standards for a “good faith” settlement under applicable California law.

The trial court has selected a receiver for the abatement fund, but the terms of an order appointing the receiver have not been determined and will be the subject of a further hearing scheduled in March 2019. The trial court has also stated it will not enter the judgment in the case until after the Sixth District Court of Appeal determines whether to hear the appeal regarding our settlement agreement. We expect the judgment will require full payment of all amounts due by us and the other defendants in respect to the abatement fund within sixty days of entry of the judgment.

If the appellate court does not reverse the trial court decision and approve the terms of this or any other settlement agreement between us and the plaintiffs, the proceedings in the trial court under the remand, as discussed above, would continue. In such event, NL’s share of the recalculated amount of the abatement fund is not presently known, and other uncertainties exist with respect to the new decisions to be made by the trial court from the remand of the case, as discussed above, including but not limited to the final amount of the abatement fund which will ultimately be expended, particularly because participation in the abatement program by eligible homeowners is voluntary and the ultimate extent of participation and how the abatement fund will be administered is uncertain. 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 and the remand proceedings in the trial court, that NL may in the future incur liability resulting in the recognition of an additional loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position and liquidity.

In November 2018, NL was served with two complaints filed by county governments in Pennsylvania. Each county alleges that NL and several other defendants created a public nuisance by selling and promoting lead-containing paints and pigments in the counties. The plaintiffs seek abatement and declaratory relief. We believe these lawsuits are inconsistent with Pennsylvania law and without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

New cases may continue to be filed against us. 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.

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:

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, 2017, we had not recognized any material receivables and at December 31, 2018, we have recognized $15.0 million of receivables for recoveries related to the California case discussed above.

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 2016, 2017, and 2018 are presented below.

	Years ended December 31,
	2016			2017			2018
	(In millions)
Balance at the beginning of the year	$	120.4		$	122.6		$	117.5
Additions charged to expense, net		5.9			4.1			3.1
Payments, net		(3.7	)		(9.1	)		(17.2	)
Changes in currency exchange rates and other		—			(.1	)		—
Balance at the end of the year	$	122.6		$	117.5		$	103.4
Amounts recognized in our Consolidated Balance Sheet at the end of the year:
Current liabilities	$	15.3		$	6.8		$	6.5
Noncurrent liabilities		107.3			110.7			96.9
Total	$	122.6		$	117.5		$	103.4

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 December 31, 2018, NL had accrued approximately $98 million related to approximately 35 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 $117 million, including the amount currently accrued.

NL believes that it is not reasonably possible to estimate the range of costs for certain sites. At December 31, 2018, 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.

Other—We have also accrued approximately $5.4 million at December 31, 2018 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.

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 three 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.

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 (including asbestos-related claims), 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.

Concentrations of credit risk—Sales of TiO₂ accounted for approximately 93% of our Chemicals Segment’s sales in 2016, 94% in each of 2017 and 2018. The remaining sales result from the mining and sale of ilmenite ore (a raw material used in the sulfate pigment production process), and the manufacture and sale of iron-based water treatment chemicals and certain titanium chemical products (derived from co-products of the TiO₂ production processes). TiO₂ is generally sold to the paint, plastics and paper industries. Such markets are generally considered “quality-of-life” markets whose demand for TiO₂ is influenced by the relative economic well-being of the various geographic regions. Our Chemicals Segment sells TiO₂ to over 4,000 customers, with the top ten customers approximating 33% of our Chemicals Segment’s net sales in 2016, 34% in 2017 and 33% in 2018. In 2016 one customer, Behr Process Corporation, accounted for approximately 10% of our Chemicals Segment’s net sales. The table below shows the approximate percentage of our TiO₂ sales by volume for our significant markets, Europe and North America, for the last three years.

	2016		2017		2018
Europe		51%		50%		44%
North America		29%		31%		37%

Our Component Products Segment’s products are sold primarily in North America to original equipment manufacturers. The ten largest customers related to our Component Product’s Segment accounted for approximately 46% of our Component Products Segment’s sales in 2016, 44% in each of 2017, and 2018. United States Postal Service, a customer of the security products reporting unit, accounted for approximately 14% of the Component Products Segment’s total sales in 2016, 16% in 2017 and 13% in 2018. Harley Davidson, also a customer of the security products reporting unit, accounted for approximately 11% in 2016.

Our Real Estate Management and Development Segment’s revenues are land sales income and water and electric delivery fees. During 2016 we had sales to three customers that each exceeded 10% of our Real Estate Management and Development Segment’s net sales: Grey Stone Nevada LLC (34%), Richmond Homes of Nevada (15%) and Henderson Interchange Centers LLC (12%). During 2017 we had sales to three customers that each exceeded 10% of our Real Estate Management and Development Segment’s net sales: Richmond Homes of Nevada (37%), Grey Stone Nevada LLC (22%) both related to land sales, and the City of Henderson (11%) related to water delivery sales. During 2018 we had sales to three customers that each exceeded 10% of our Real Estate Management and Development Segment’s net sales: Richmond Homes of Nevada (29%), Woodside Homes of Nevada LLC (20%) and Toll Henderson LLC (17%) all related to land sales.

Long-term contracts—Our Chemicals Segment has long-term supply contracts that provide for certain of our TiO₂ feedstock requirements through 2020. The agreements require Kronos to purchase certain minimum quantities of feedstock with minimum purchase commitments aggregating approximately $594 million over the life of the contracts in years subsequent to December 31, 2018. In addition, our Chemicals Segment has other long-term supply and service contracts that provide for various raw materials and services. These agreements require Kronos to purchase certain minimum quantities or services with minimum purchase commitments aggregating approximately $156 million at December 31, 2018.

Operating leases—Our Chemicals Segment’s principal German operating subsidiary leases the land under its Leverkusen TiO₂ production facility pursuant to a lease with Bayer AG that expires in 2050. The Leverkusen facility itself, which our Chemicals Segment owns and which represents approximately one-third of its current TiO₂ production capacity, is located within Bayer’s extensive manufacturing complex. Kronos periodically establishes the amount of rent for the land lease associated with the Leverkusen facility by agreement with Bayer for periods of at least two years at a time. The lease agreement provides for no formula, index or other mechanism to determine changes in the rent for such land lease; rather, any change in the rent is subject solely to periodic negotiation between Bayer and Kronos. We recognize any change in the rent based on such negotiations as part of lease expense starting from the time such change is agreed upon by both parties, as any such change in the rent is deemed “contingent rentals” under GAAP. Under the terms of various supply and services agreements majority-owned subsidiaries of Bayer provides raw materials, including chlorine, auxiliary and operating materials, utilities and services necessary to operate the Leverkusen facility. These agreements, as amended, expire in 2019 through 2022. We expect to renew these agreements prior to expiration at similar terms and conditions.

We also lease various other manufacturing facilities and equipment. Some of the leases contain purchase and/or various term renewal options at fair market and fair rental values, respectively. In most cases we expect that, in the normal course of business, such leases will be renewed or replaced by other leases. Net rent expense approximated $14.3 million in 2016 and $16.3 million in 2017 and $14.8 million in 2018. At December 31, 2018, future minimum payments under non-cancellable operating leases having an initial or remaining term of more than one year were as follows:

Years ending December 31,	Amount
	(In millions)
2019	$	6.3
2020		5.1
2021		4.3
2022		3.2
2023		2.4
2024 and thereafter		21.5
Total (1)	$	42.8

Income taxes—Prior to 2016, NL made certain pro-rata distributions to its stockholders in the form of shares of Kronos common stock. All of NL’s distributions of Kronos common stock were taxable to NL and NL recognized a taxable gain equal to the difference between the fair market value of the Kronos shares distributed on the various dates of distribution and NL’s adjusted tax basis in the shares at the dates of distribution. NL transferred shares of Kronos common stock to us in satisfaction of the tax liability related to NL’s gain on the transfer or distribution of these shares of Kronos common stock and the tax liability generated from the use of Kronos shares to settle the tax liability. To date, we have not paid the liability to Contran because Contran has not paid the liability to the applicable tax authority. The income tax liability will become payable to Contran, and by Contran to the applicable tax authority, when the shares of Kronos transferred or distributed by NL to us are sold or otherwise transferred outside the Contran Tax Group or in the event of certain restructuring transactions involving us. We have recognized deferred income taxes for our investment in Kronos common stock.

We are a party to a tax sharing agreement with Contran providing for the allocation of tax liabilities and tax payments as described in Note 1. Under applicable law, we, as well as every other member of the Contran Tax Group, are each jointly and severally liable for the aggregate federal income tax liability of Contran and the other companies included in the Contran Tax Group for all periods in which we are included in the Contran Tax Group. Contran has agreed, however, to indemnify us for any liability for income taxes of the Contran Tax Group in excess of our tax liability computed in accordance with the tax sharing agreement.