The Company is subject to various federal, state, local and foreign government requirements relating to the protection of the environment. We believe that, as a general matter, our policies, practices and procedures are properly designed to prevent unreasonable risk of environmental damage and personal injury and that our handling, manufacture, use and disposal of hazardous substances are in accordance with environmental and safety laws and regulations. However, mainly because of past operations and operations of predecessor companies, we, like other companies engaged in similar businesses, have incurred remedial response and voluntary cleanup costs for site contamination and are a party to lawsuits and claims associated with environmental and safety matters, including past production of products containing hazardous substances. Additional lawsuits, claims and costs involving environmental matters are likely to continue to arise in the future.

With respect to environmental matters involving site contamination, the Company continually conducts studies, individually or jointly with other potentially responsible parties, to determine the feasibility of various remedial techniques. It is our policy to record appropriate liabilities for environmental matters when remedial efforts or damage claim payments are probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. Such liabilities are based on our best estimate of the undiscounted future costs required to complete the remedial work. The recorded liabilities are adjusted periodically as remediation efforts progress or as additional technical, regulatory or legal information becomes available. Given the uncertainties regarding the status of laws, regulations, enforcement policies, the impact of other potentially responsible parties, technology and information related to individual sites, we do not believe it is possible to develop an estimate of the range of reasonably possible environmental loss in excess of our recorded liabilities. We expect to fund expenditures for these matters from operating cash flow. The timing of cash expenditures depends on a number of factors, including the timing of remedial investigations and feasibility studies, the timing of litigation and settlements of remediation liability, personal injury and property damage claims, regulatory approval of cleanup projects, remedial techniques to be utilized and agreements with other parties.

The Company does not currently possess sufficient information to reasonably estimate the amounts of environmental liabilities to be recorded upon future completion of studies, litigation or settlements, and neither the timing nor the amount of the ultimate costs associated with environmental matters can be determined, although they could be material to our Consolidated Statement of Operations and operating cash flows in the periods recognized or paid. However, considering our past experience and existing reserves, the Company does not expect that environmental matters will have a material adverse effect on its Consolidated Balance Sheet.

In conjunction with the Resideo spin-off, the Company entered into an indemnification and reimbursement agreement with a Resideo subsidiary, pursuant to which Resideo’s subsidiary has an ongoing obligation to make cash payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to 90% of Honeywell’s annual net spending for environmental matters at certain sites as defined in the agreement. The amount payable to Honeywell in any given year is subject to a cap of $140 million, and the obligation will continue until the earlier of December 31, 2043, or December 31 of the third consecutive year during which the annual payment obligation is less than $25 million.

Reimbursements associated with this agreement are collected from Resideo quarterly and were $140 million in both 2020 and 2019 and offset operating cash outflows incurred by the Company. On July 28, 2020, the Company and Resideo agreed to a second amendment of the indemnification and reimbursement agreement to extend the payment due date to October 30, 2020 for the reimbursement amount of $35 million (originally due on April 30, 2020). The Company had previously agreed to extend the payment date for such amount to July 30, 2020. On October 30, 2020, Resideo paid Honeywell the regularly scheduled reimbursement amount of $35 million due on that date as well as the deferred reimbursement amount of $35 million. As the Company incurs costs for environmental matters deemed probable and reasonably estimable related to the sites covered by the indemnification and reimbursement agreement, a corresponding receivable from Resideo for 90% of such costs is also recorded. This receivable amount recorded in 2020 and 2019 was $146 million and $109 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2020, Other Current Assets and Other Assets included $140 million and $451 million, respectively, for the short-term and long-term portion of the receivable amount due from Resideo under the indemnification and reimbursement agreement. As of December 31, 2019, Other Current Assets and Other Assets included $140 million and $445 million, respectively, for the short-term and long-term portion of the receivable amount due from Resideo under the indemnification and reimbursement agreement.


	Year Ended December 31, 2020						Year Ended December 31, 2019						Year Ended December 31, 2018
	Bendix		NARCO		Total		Bendix		NARCO		Total		Bendix		NARCO		Total
Beginning of year	$	1,499	$	858	$	2,357	$	1,623	$	891	$	2,514	$	1,703	$	907	$	2,610
Accrual for update to estimated liability	80		18		98		78		22		100		197		32		229
Change in estimated cost of future claims	42		—		42		(22)		—		(22)		(72)		—		(72)
Update of expected resolution values for pending claims	10		—		10		(4)		—		(4)		1		—		1
Asbestos related liability payments	(190)		(97)		(287)		(176)		(55)		(231)		(206)		(48)		(254)
End of year	$	1,441	$	779	$	2,220	$	1,499	$	858	$	2,357	$	1,623	$	891	$	2,514


	Year Ended December 31, 2020						Year Ended December 31, 2019						Year Ended December 31, 2018
	Bendix		NARCO		Total		Bendix		NARCO		Total		Bendix		NARCO		Total
Beginning of year	$	153	$	281	$	434	$	170	$	307	$	477	$	191	$	312	$	503
Probable insurance recoveries related to estimated liability	10		—		10		3		—		3		11		—		11
Insurance receipts for asbestos related liabilities	(33)		(25)		(58)		(39)		(29)		(68)		(33)		(5)		(38)
Insurance receivables settlements and write offs	18		(2)		16		19		3		22		1		—		1

End of year	$	148	$	254	$	402	$	153	$	281	$	434	$	170	$	307	$	477

NARCO Products – NARCO manufactured high-grade, heat-resistant, refractory products for various industries. Honeywell’s predecessor, Allied Corporation, owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. Allied Corporation sold the NARCO business in 1986 and entered into a cross-indemnity agreement which included an obligation to indemnify the purchaser for asbestos claims. Such claims arise primarily from alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing refractory brick and mortar for high-temperature applications. NARCO ceased manufacturing these products in 1980 and ultimately filed for bankruptcy in January 2002, at which point in time all then current and future NARCO asbestos claims were stayed against both NARCO and Honeywell pending the reorganization of NARCO. The Company established its initial liability for NARCO asbestos claims in 2002.

NARCO emerged from bankruptcy in April 2013, at which time a federally authorized 524(g) trust was established to evaluate and resolve all existing NARCO asbestos claims (the Trust). Both Honeywell and NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present and future individual actions in state or federal courts and requiring all asbestos-related claims based on exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing products to be made against the Trust. The NARCO Trust Agreement (TA) and the NARCO Trust Distribution Procedures (TDP) are the principal documents setting forth the structure of the Trust, establishing Honeywell’s evergreen funding obligations and the material operating rules for the Trust.

Per the TA, the Trust is eligible to receive cash dividends from Harbison-Walker International Inc. (HWI), the reorganized and renamed entity that emerged, fully operational, from the NARCO bankruptcy. The cash dividends are required to be used to pay claims which qualify for payment under the TDP (Annual Contribution Claims) until those funds are exhausted, at which point Honeywell’s funding obligation, subject to an annual cap of $145 million, is triggered. The Company is also required to fund amounts owed pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the settlement agreements and TDP (Pre-Established Unliquidated Claims), as well as fund the annual operating costs of the Trust. There is no annual funding cap relative to Pre-Established Unliquidated Claims. Dividends from HWI were exhausted during the fourth quarter of 2019 and there have been no further dividends from HWI to date.

The operating rules per the TDP include Honeywell’s audit rights and the criteria claimants must meet for a claim to be considered valid and paid, which include adequate medical evidence of the claimant’s asbestos-related condition and credible evidence of exposure to a specific NARCO asbestos-containing product. Once operational in 2014, the Trust began to receive, process and pay claims, at which point the Company began to assert its audit rights to review and monitor the claims processor’s adherence to the established requirements of the TDP. While doing so, the Company identified several issues with the way the Trust was adhering to the TDP and the Company continues to identify and dispute these matters as further claims are processed. Although the Company is attempting to resolve instances where it believes the Trust is not processing claims in accordance with the established TDP, the Company reserves the right to seek judicial intervention should it fail to resolve the disputed issues.

Due to the bankruptcy filing in 2002, claimants were not permitted to file additional claims until the Trust became operative in 2014. As a consequence, there was a large backlog of claims that were filed with the Trust upon becoming operative through December 31, 2017, the date by which these claims had to be filed or else be barred by the statute of limitations (subject to tolling exceptions in the TDP). Therefore, the claims filing rate did not start to normalize until 2018 and thereafter. As a result, between 2002 and 2018, the Company lacked a history of sufficiently reliable claims data to derive a reasonable estimate and the Company continued to update its original NARCO asbestos liability, as appropriate, using all available information.

With three years of sufficiently reliable claims data, the Company updated its estimate of the NARCO asbestos liability utilizing claims data from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. The Company utilized an asbestos liability valuation specialist to support our preparation of the NARCO asbestos liability estimates. Our estimates, which involve significant management judgment, include consideration of multiple scenarios, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Trust's ability to process claims during 2020. The estimate for the resolution of asserted Annual Contribution Claims and Pre-Established Unliquidated Claims uses average payment values for the relevant historical period. For unasserted claims, the estimate is based on historic and anticipated claims filing experience and payment rates, disease classifications and type of claim, and average payment values by the Trust for the relevant historical period. The Company's estimate also includes all years of epidemiological disease projection through 2059.

Our updated estimate of NARCO asbestos liability, which was consistent with the previously recorded NARCO liability estimate, was $779 million as of December 31, 2020. The liability reflects an estimate for the resolution of Annual Contribution Claims and Pre-Established Unliquidated Claims filed with the Trust, as well as unasserted Annual Contribution Claims and Pre-Established Unliquidated Claims. The NARCO asbestos liability excludes the annual operating expenses of the Trust which are expensed as they are incurred.

The Company's insurance receivable of $254 million as of December 31, 2020, corresponding to the estimated liability for asserted and unasserted NARCO asbestos claims, reflects coverage which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Honeywell conducts analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is recoverable for asbestos claims. Most of our insurance carriers remain solvent. However, select individual insurance carriers are now insolvent, which we have considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. Our judgments related to our insurance carriers and insurance coverages are reasonable and consistent with Honeywell's historical dealings and Honeywell's knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers.

Bendix Products – Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. The following tables present information regarding Bendix related asbestos claims activity:

The Consolidated Financial Statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of asserted (claims filed as of the financial statement date) and unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims and excludes the Company’s ongoing legal fees to defend such asbestos claims which will continue to be expensed as they are incurred. The Company has valued Bendix asserted and unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous five years. The Company updates the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during the fourth quarter each year.

The Company's insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of asserted and unasserted Bendix asbestos claims reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers, judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our insurers.

On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior accounting for Bendix asbestos claims. An Amended Complaint was filed on December 30, 2019, and on February 7, 2020, we filed a Motion to Dismiss. On May 18, 2020, the court denied our Motion to Dismiss. We believe the claims have no merit.

In conjunction with the Garrett spin-off, the Company entered into a binding indemnification and reimbursement agreement (Garrett Indemnity) with a Garrett subsidiary, pursuant to which Garrett’s subsidiary has an ongoing obligation to make cash payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to (i) 90% of Honeywell’s asbestos-related liability payments primarily related to the Bendix business in the United States, as well as certain environmental-related liability payments and accounts payable and non-United States asbestos-related liability payments, including the legal costs of defending and resolving such liabilities, less (ii) 90% of Honeywell’s net insurance receipts and, as may be applicable, certain other recoveries associated with such liabilities. The amount payable to Honeywell in respect of such liabilities arising in any given year is subject to a cap of approximately Euro 150 million (equivalent to $175 million at the time the Garrett Indemnity was entered into). The obligation under the terms of the Garrett Indemnity continues until the earlier of December 31, 2048, or December 31 of the third consecutive year during which the annual obligation is less than the Euro equivalent, at the fixed exchange rate at the time the indemnification and reimbursement agreement was entered into, of $25 million.

On June 12, 2020, the Company and Garrett entered into an amendment of the Garrett Indemnity in connection with Garrett’s amendment of its 2018 credit agreement. These amendments provided Garrett with temporary financial covenant relief with respect to the total leverage and interest coverage ratios, for a period that could extend to as late as June 30, 2022. Garrett’s payments to the Company under the Garrett Indemnity were deferred to the extent Garrett is (or to the extent such payments would cause Garrett to be) out of compliance with the original financial covenants and resume to the extent Garrett is in compliance with such original financial covenants. Any deferred amounts were to be paid to the extent Garrett was in compliance with such original financial covenants and had available capacity to make such payments pursuant to the terms of the Garrett Indemnity and its current credit agreement.

Reimbursements associated with the Garrett Indemnity are scheduled under the agreement to be collected from Garrett quarterly and offset operating cash outflows incurred by the Company. As a result of the extension referenced above and below, such amounts were $36 million in 2020 as compared with $152 million in 2019. As the Company records the accruals for matters covered by the Garrett Indemnity, a corresponding receivable from Garrett is recorded for 90% of that accrual as determined by the terms of the Garrett Indemnity.

In conjunction with the spin-off, Honeywell also entered into a binding tax matters agreement with Garrett and a Garrett subsidiary (the Tax Matters Agreement). The Tax Matters Agreement generally provides that Garrett is responsible and must indemnify Honeywell for all ordinary operating taxes, including income taxes, sales taxes, value-added taxes and payroll taxes, relating to Garrett for all periods, including periods prior to the spin-off, to the extent not paid prior to the spin-off date. In addition, among other items, as a result of the mandatory transition tax imposed by the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Garrett is required to make payments to Honeywell in the amount representing the net tax liability of Honeywell under the mandatory transition tax attributable to Garrett.

On December 2, 2019, Garrett and Garrett ASASCO Inc. filed a Summons with Notice and commenced a lawsuit in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the State Court), seeking to invalidate the Garrett Indemnity. Garrett sought damages and a declaratory judgment based on various claims set forth in the Summons with Notice. On January 15, 2020, Garrett filed its complaint in the action, which asserted the same claims, and on March 5, 2020, we filed a Motion to Dismiss. On June 12, 2020, given the challenges of operating in the COVID-19 environment, Honeywell and Garrett entered into a litigation status agreement pursuant to which (i) the parties agreed to make good faith efforts to limit near-term litigation spend on this matter, and (ii) the Company agreed to extend both the $2 million payment owed by Garrett to the Company on May 1, 2020 under the Garrett Indemnity and the $18 million payment owed by Garrett to the Company on April 1, 2020 under the Tax Matters Agreement until December 31, 2020 (which amounts, as previously disclosed, had been deferred to May 31, 2020). On July 17, 2020, the Company received a notice from Garrett asserting that Honeywell has caused material breaches of the Tax Matters Agreement and that the Tax Matters Agreement is unenforceable.

On September 20, 2020, Garrett and 36 of its affiliates filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court). On September 23, 2020, Garrett moved the existing State Court litigation against Honeywell to the Bankruptcy Court. Honeywell again moved to dismiss all of Garrett’s claims on October 13, 2020. On November 2, 2020, Garrett filed a motion seeking to establish procedures to estimate the value of Honeywell’s claims. Honeywell objected to the motion. On November 18, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court did not rule on the motion to dismiss but suggested that two weeks be set aside in February 2021 for an evidentiary hearing to establish the actual allowed amount or net amount of Honeywell’s claim against Garrett. Honeywell and Garrett agreed to proceed with the estimation of Honeywell’s claims. We believe we have fully complied with our obligations under the Garrett Indemnity and the Tax Matters Agreement and that both agreements are valid and enforceable.

Garrett’s operations have and are expected to continue, without interruption, throughout the bankruptcy proceedings. Garrett initially proposed to sell its business while in bankruptcy, and entered into a Share and Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of September 20, 2020, with KPS Capital Partners, LP (the Stalking Horse Agreement) and filed proposed bidding procedures for a marketing and sale process, auction and other procedures related to the proposed sale. In October 2020, Honeywell signed a coordination agreement with Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. (Oaktree) and Centerbridge Partners, L.P. (Centerbridge), which was subsequently signed by additional equity holders that, collectively with Honeywell, Centerbridge and Oaktree, represent approximately 58% of Garrett’s outstanding common stock and noteholders representing approximately 88% of the principal amount of Garrett’s outstanding senior notes (the Coordination Agreement). The Coordination Agreement and related term sheet set forth the terms of a proposed plan of reorganization (the Initial COH Proposal).

In October 2020, the Bankruptcy Court approved the bidding procedures and the Stalking Horse Agreement (as amended), and Garrett conducted a marketing and auction process through January 8, 2021. On January 11, 2021, after further revisions to the Initial COH Proposal, Garrett determined that the revised proposal (the Final COH Plan) was higher and better than all other proposals received and entered into a plan support agreement (the Plan Support Agreement), pursuant to which all parties agreed to pursue Bankruptcy Court confirmation of the Final COH Plan. On January 15, 2021, KPS Capital Partners, LP terminated the Stalking Horse Agreement with Garrett.

As set forth in the Plan Support Agreement, the Final COH Plan provides that, if it is confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court, Honeywell will receive from Garrett at the time of Garrett’s emergence from bankruptcy an initial payment of $375 million in cash and Series B Preferred Stock, which will provide for cash payments to Honeywell of $35 million in 2022 and $100 million per year from 2023 to 2030 (inclusive), subject to various put and call rights set forth therein. The initial cash payment, together with the Series B Preferred Stock, would be paid/issued in full and final satisfaction of Garrett’s obligations to Honeywell under the Garrett Indemnity and the Tax Matters Agreement. Upon Garrett’s emergence from bankruptcy, both agreements would be terminated, Honeywell and Garrett would mutually release each other from the claims asserted in all pending legal actions, and all pending litigation with Garrett would be resolved. In light of these developments, the hearing scheduled to estimate Honeywell’s claims and the adversary proceeding seeking to invalidate the Indemnity Agreement have been stayed and all related litigation suspended. If the Final COH Plan is confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court, both proceedings would be dismissed with prejudice on the effective date of the Final COH Plan.

We regularly review the aggregate carrying value of the receivable amounts due in connection with the Garrett Indemnity and the Tax Matters Agreement. Following Garrett’s bankruptcy filing on September 20, 2020, the Company reduced the aggregate carrying value of the receivable by $350 million to reflect the present value of

amounts owed to us over the full term of these agreements. Because Garrett is now a party to the Plan Support Agreement, we believe the present value of payments to Honeywell under the Final COH Plan, discounted at a rate reflective of the terms of the agreement, is an appropriate estimate of receivable amounts. On this basis, Honeywell recorded an additional adjustment of $92 million to lower the aggregate carrying value of the receivable amounts due in connection with the Garrett Indemnity and Tax Matters Agreement to $959 million as of December 31, 2020. Other Current Assets and Other Assets include $10 million and $949 million, respectively, for the short-term and long-term portion of the receivable amount due from the Garrett Indemnity and Tax Matters Agreement. As of December 31, 2019, Other Current Assets and Other Assets include $133 million and $1,188 million, respectively, for the short-term and long-term portion of the receivable amount due from the Garrett Indemnity and Tax Matters Agreement. For the year ended December 31, 2020, a non-cash charge of $509 million is recognized in Other (income) expense, which includes the adjustments to the carrying value of the receivable described above.

There can be no assurance that the Final COH Plan will be confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court or that Garrett will be able to substantially consummate the restructuring transactions contemplated in the Final COH Plan. The ultimate outcome of the bankruptcy process is uncertain. Depending on the transaction and/or plan of reorganization ultimately approved and confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court, the amount collected could differ from the receivable amounts currently recorded in our financial statements. There can be no assurance that recording an additional adjustment (positive or negative) against the remaining receivable amounts in whole or in part (together with a related statement of operations charge) will not be necessary in a future period or periods. Honeywell will continue to participate in the Bankruptcy Court proceedings in order to appropriately assess and enforce our rights in this matter. Should the Final COH Plan not be confirmed in the form currently contemplated, Honeywell intends to vigorously defend its rights to collect amounts due under the Garrett Indemnity and Tax Matters Agreement with Garrett.

The Company is subject to a number of other lawsuits, investigations and disputes (some of which involve substantial amounts claimed) arising out of the conduct of our business, including matters relating to commercial transactions, government contracts, product liability, prior acquisitions and divestitures, employee benefit plans, intellectual property, and environmental, health and safety matters. We recognize a liability for any contingency that is probable of occurrence and reasonably estimable. We continually assess the likelihood of adverse judgments or outcomes in these matters, as well as potential ranges of possible losses (taking into consideration any insurance recoveries), based on a careful analysis of each matter with the assistance of outside legal counsel and, if applicable, other experts. Included in these other matters is the following:

Honeywell v. United Auto Workers (UAW) et. al – In September 2011, the UAW and certain Honeywell retirees (Plaintiffs) filed a suit in the Eastern District of Michigan (the District Court) alleging that a series of Master Collective Bargaining Agreements (MCBAs) between Honeywell and the UAW provided the retirees with rights to lifetime, vested healthcare benefits that could never be changed or reduced. Plaintiffs alleged that Honeywell had violated those vested rights by implementing express limitations (CAPS) on the amount Honeywell contributed toward healthcare coverage for the retirees. Honeywell subsequently answered the UAW’s complaint and asserted counterclaims, including for breach of implied warranty.

In the opinion, the District Court held that the MCBAs do not promise retirees vested, lifetime benefits that survive expiration of the MCBAs. Based on this ruling, Honeywell terminated the retirees healthcare coverage benefits altogether as of July 31, 2018. In response, the UAW filed a motion to enjoin Honeywell from completely terminating coverage as of July 31, 2018, arguing that the CAPS themselves are vested and that Honeywell must continue to provide retiree medical benefits at the capped level. On July 28, 2018, the District Court denied the UAW’s motion and entered a final judgment consistent with its March 2018 ruling. The UAW appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

to pay monetary damages to retirees for any past years in which Honeywell paid less than the “full premium” of their healthcare coverage. Such damages would be limited, depending on the retiree group, to a two to three-year period ending when the 2017 MCBA expired, and Honeywell would have no ongoing obligation to continue funding healthcare coverage for subsequent periods. Honeywell appealed the District Court’s ruling on this “full premium” damages issue.

On April 3, 2020, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion ruling for Honeywell in all respects. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling that the MCBAs do not promise retirees vested, lifetime benefits that survive expiration of the MCBAs. In addition, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's ruling that Honeywell was obligated under the MCBAs to pay the "full premium" for retiree healthcare, rather than the capped amount. As a result of these rulings, Honeywell is not required to pay any monetary damages to the Plaintiffs.

Petrobras and Unaoil – We are cooperating with certain investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the SEC and Brazilian authorities relating to our use of third parties who previously worked for our UOP business in Brazil in relation to Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras). The investigations are focused on compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar Brazilian laws, and involve, among other things, document production and interviews with former and current management and employees. The DOJ and the SEC are also examining a matter involving a foreign subsidiary’s prior engagement of Unaoil S.A.M. in Algeria. We are cooperating with the authorities in each of the above matters. While we cannot predict the outcome of these matters, based on the facts currently known to us, we do not anticipate that these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Given the uncertainty inherent in litigation and investigations (including the specific matters referenced above), we do not believe it is possible to develop estimates of reasonably possible loss in excess of current accruals for these matters (other than as specifically set forth above). Considering our past experience and existing accruals, we do not expect the outcome of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position. Because most contingencies are resolved over long periods of time, potential liabilities are subject to change due to new developments, changes in settlement strategy or the impact of evidentiary requirements, which could cause us to pay damage awards or settlements (or become subject to equitable remedies) that could have a material adverse effect on our Consolidated Results of Operations or operating cash flows in the periods recognized or paid.

In the normal course of business, the Company issues product warranties and product performance guarantees. We accrue for the estimated cost of product warranties and performance guarantees based on contract terms and historical experience at the time of sale. Adjustments to initial obligations for warranties and guarantees are made as changes to the obligations become reasonably estimable. The following table summarizes information concerning our recorded obligations for product warranties and product performance guarantees.