Commitments and Contingencies.

Investment

Exit Facility

In connection with Tropicana's completion of the Restructuring Transactions (see Note 4, “Operating Units-Gaming”), Tropicana entered into the Exit Facility, as amended, which consists of a (i) $130 million Term Loan Facility issued at a discount of 7%, which was funded on March 8, 2010, the Effective Date and (ii) $20 million Revolving Facility. Each of the Investment Funds was a lender under the Exit Facility and, in the aggregate, held over 50% of the loans under the Term Loan Facility and was obligated to provide 100% of any amounts borrowed by Tropicana under the Revolving Facility. As described in Note 4, on June 30, 2011, the Investment Funds made a distribution-in-kind of their investment in the Exit Facility to us and as a result we became the lenders under the Exit Facility. As further discussed in Note 11, "Debt," in March 2012, Tropicana paid in full the remaining amounts outstanding under the Exit Facility and the Revolving Facility was canceled therewith.

Dynegy Inc.

On November 4, 2011, Resources Capital Management Corp., Roseton OL, LLC, and Danskammer OL, LLC, filed an action in Supreme Court of New York, New York County, against Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy"), various affiliates of Dynegy, certain members of the Board of Directors of Dynegy, and various other defendants, including Icahn Capital. The plaintiffs were seeking an unspecified amount of damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary obligation, as well as declaratory and other equitable relief regarding certain notes and related contracts. Icahn Capital was named as a defendant and was sued for allegedly aiding and abetting Dynegy and its directors in the alleged breaches of fiduciary obligation, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. On June 5, 2012, the Complaint was discontinued and dismissed with prejudice.

On March 28, 2012 an action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, entitled Silsby v. Icahn et. al. Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of Dynegy Inc and certain of its directors. As initially filed, the action purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between September 2011 and March 2012. The Complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws by defendants' allegedly making false and misleading statements in securities filings that artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock. The individual defendants are alleged to have been controlling persons of Dynegy. Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified amount. Subsequent to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for bankruptcy, and a U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of Reorganization. Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and has filed an amended complaint which purports to be a class action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities between July 10, 2011 through March 9, 2012. However, we believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims and intend to file a motion to dismiss. At present, the case is being held in temporary abeyance pending a decision by the federal court as to the scope of plaintiff's right to proceed with this action.

Automotive

Environmental Matters

Federal-Mogul is a defendant in lawsuits filed, or the recipient of administrative orders issued or demand letters received, in various jurisdictions pursuant to the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) or other similar national, provincial or state environmental remedial laws. These laws provide that responsible parties may be liable to pay for remediating contamination resulting from hazardous substances that were discharged into the environment by them, by prior owners or occupants of property they currently own or operate, or by others to whom they sent such substances for treatment or other disposition at third party locations. Federal-Mogul has been notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, other national environmental agencies, and various provincial and state agencies that it may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) under such laws for the cost of remediating hazardous substances pursuant to CERCLA and other national and state or provincial environmental laws. PRP designation often results in the funding of site investigations and subsequent remedial activities.

Many of the sites that are likely to be the costliest to remediate are often current or former commercial waste disposal facilities to which numerous companies sent wastes. Despite the potential joint and several liability which might be imposed on Federal-Mogul under CERCLA and some of the other laws pertaining to these sites, its share of the total waste sent to these sites has generally been small. Federal-Mogul believes its exposure for liability at these sites is limited.

Federal-Mogul has also identified certain other present and former properties at which it may be responsible for cleaning up or addressing environmental contamination, in some cases as a result of contractual commitments and/or federal or state environmental laws. Federal-Mogul is actively seeking to resolve these actual and potential statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations. Although difficult to quantify based on the complexity of the issues, Federal-Mogul has accrued amounts corresponding to its best estimate of the costs associated with such regulatory and contractual obligations on the basis of available information from site investigations and best professional judgment of consultants.

Total environmental liabilities, determined on an undiscounted basis, were $15 million and $16 million at December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, and are included in accrued expenses and other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets.

Federal-Mogul believes that recorded environmental liabilities will be adequate to cover its estimated liability for its exposure in respect to such matters. In the event that such liabilities were to significantly exceed the amounts recorded by Federal-Mogul, our Automotive segment's results of operations could be materially affected. At December 31, 2012, Federal-Mogul estimates reasonably possible material additional losses, above and beyond its best estimate of required remediation costs as recorded, to approximate $43 million.

Asset Retirement Obligations

Federal-Mogul has identified sites with contractual obligations and several sites that are closed or expected to be closed and sold. In connection with these sites, Federal-Mogul has accrued $29 million and $22 million at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, for ARO's, primarily related to anticipated costs of removing hazardous building materials at its facilities, and has considered impairment issues that may result from capitalization of these ARO amounts.

Federal-Mogul has conditional asset retirement obligations ("CARO"), primarily related to removal costs of hazardous materials in buildings, for which it believes reasonable cost estimates cannot be made at this time because it does not believe it has a reasonable basis to assign probabilities to a range of potential settlement dates for these retirement obligations. Accordingly, Federal-Mogul is currently unable to determine amounts to accrue for CARO at such sites.

Energy

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

The minimum required payments for CVR's unconditional purchase obligations are as follows:



	Unconditional Purchase Obligations⁽¹⁾
	(in millions)
2013	$	123
2014	110
2015	99
2016	92
2017	91
Thereafter	931
	$	1,446

⁽¹⁾This amount includes $1,008 million payable ratably over nine years pursuant to petroleum transportation service agreements between CRRM and TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP ("TransCanada"). Under the agreements, CRRM receives transportation for at least 25,000 barrels per day of crude oil with a delivery point at Cushing, Oklahoma for a term of 20 years on TransCanada's Keystone pipeline system. CRRM began receiving crude oil under the agreements in the first quarter of 2011.

CVR leases various equipment, including rail cars, and real properties under long-term operating leases expiring at various dates. For the period May 5, 2012 through December 31, 2012, lease expense approximated $6 million. The lease agreements have various remaining terms. Some agreements are renewable, at CVR's option, for additional periods. It is expected, in the ordinary course of business, that leases will be renewed or replaced as they expire. Additionally, in the normal course of business, CVR has long-term commitments to purchase oxygen, nitrogen, electricity, storage capacity and pipeline transportation services.

Crude Oil Supply Agreement

On August 31, 2012, CRRM and Vitol Inc. (“Vitol”), entered into an Amended and Restated Crude Oil Supply Agreement (the “Vitol Agreement”). The Vitol Agreement amends and restates the Crude Oil Supply Agreement between CRRM and Vitol dated March 30, 2011, as amended (the “Previous Supply Agreement”). Under the agreement, Vitol supplies the petroleum business with crude oil and intermediation logistics, which helps to reduce the Refining Partnership's inventory position and mitigate crude oil pricing risk.

Litigation

From time to time, CVR is involved in various lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, including matters such as those described below under, "Environmental, Health and Safety Matters." Liabilities related to such litigation are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. It is possible that CVR's management estimates of the outcomes will change within the next year due to uncertainties inherent in litigation and settlement negotiations. In the opinion of CVR management, the ultimate resolution of any other litigation matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance that CVR management's beliefs or opinions with respect to liability for potential litigation matters are accurate.

Samson Resources Company, Samson Lone Star, LLC and Samson Contour Energy E&P, LLC (together, "Samson") filed fifteen lawsuits in federal and state courts in Oklahoma and two lawsuits in state courts in New Mexico against CRRM and other defendants between March 2009 and July 2009. In addition, in May 2010, separate groups of plaintiffs (the "Anstine and Arrow cases") filed two lawsuits against CRRM and other defendants in state court in Oklahoma and Kansas. All of the lawsuits filed in state court were removed to federal court. All of the lawsuits (except for the New Mexico suits, which remained in federal court in New Mexico) were then transferred to the Bankruptcy Court for the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, where the SemGroup bankruptcy resides. In March 2011, CRRM was dismissed without prejudice from the New Mexico suits. All of the lawsuits allege that Samson or other respective plaintiffs sold crude oil to a group of companies, which generally are known as SemCrude or SemGroup (collectively, "Sem"), which later declared bankruptcy and that Sem has not paid such plaintiffs for all of the crude oil purchased from Sem. The Samson lawsuits further allege that Sem sold some of the crude oil purchased from Samson to J. Aron & Company ("J. Aron") and that J. Aron sold some of this crude oil to CRRM. All of the lawsuits seek the same remedy, the imposition of a trust, an accounting and the return of crude oil or the proceeds therefrom. The amount of the plaintiffs' alleged claims is unknown since the price and amount of crude oil sold by the plaintiffs and eventually received by CRRM through Sem and J. Aron, if any, is unknown. CRRM timely paid for all crude oil purchased from J. Aron. On January 26, 2011, CRRM and J. Aron entered into an agreement whereby J. Aron agreed to indemnify and defend CRRM from any damage, out-of-pocket expense or loss in connection with any crude oil involved in the lawsuits which CRRM purchased through J. Aron, and J. Aron agreed to reimburse CRRM's prior attorney fees and out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the lawsuits. The indemnification agreement does not provide reimbursement for any damages that CRRM may be liable for in connection with any purchases it made directly from Sem. Samson and CRRM entered a stipulation of dismissal with respect to all of the Samson cases and the Samson cases were dismissed with prejudice on February 8, 2012. The dismissal does not pertain to the Anstine and Arrow cases. In February 2013, CRRM reached a settlement in the Anstine and Arrow cases. The settlement did not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

On June 21, 2012, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“GS”) filed suit against CVR in state court in New York, alleging that CVR failed to pay GS approximately $18.5 million in fees allegedly due to GS by CVR pursuant to an engagement letter dated March 21, 2012, which according to the allegations set forth in the complaint, provided that GS was engaged by CVR to assist CVR and the CVR board of directors in connection with a tender offer for CVR's common stock made by Carl C. Icahn and certain of his affiliates. CVR believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the suit. This amount has been fully accrued as of December 31, 2012.

On August 10, 2012, Deutsche Bank (“DB”) filed suit against CVR in state court in New York, alleging that CVR failed to pay DB $18.5 million in fees allegedly due to DB by CVR pursuant to an engagement letter dated March 23, 2012, which according to the allegations set forth in the complaint, provided that DB was engaged by CVR to assist CVR and the CVR board of directors in connection with a tender offer for CVR's stock made by Carl C. Icahn and certain of his affiliates. CVR believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the suit. This amount has been fully accrued as of December 31, 2012.

On December 17, 2012, Gary Community Investment Company, f/k/a The Gary-Williams Company and GWEC Holding Company, Inc. (referred to herein collectively as “Gary-Williams”) filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County (Gary Community Investment Co. v. CVR Energy, Inc., No. 654401/12) against CVR and CRLLC (referred to collectively for purposes of this paragraph as “CVR”). The action arises out of claims relating to CVR's purchase of the Wynnewood, Oklahoma refinery pursuant to the Purchase and Sale Agreement entered into by the parties on November 2, 2011 (the “Purchase Agreement”). Specifically, CVR provided notice to Gary-Williams that it sought indemnification for various breaches of the Purchase Agreement and subsequently made a claim notice for payment of the entire escrow property pursuant to the Escrow Agreement by and among Gary-Williams, CRLLC, and the escrow agent, dated as of December 15, 2011. Gary-Williams, in its lawsuit, alleges that CVR breached the Purchase Agreement and the Escrow Agreement, and is seeking a declaratory judgment that CVR's claims are without any legal basis, damages in an unspecified amount, and release of the full amount of the escrow property to Gary-Williams.

CRNF received a ten-year property tax abatement from Montgomery County, Kansas in connection with the construction of the nitrogen fertilizer plant that expired on December 31, 2007. In connection with the expiration of the abatement, the county reassessed CRNF's nitrogen fertilizer plant and classified the nitrogen fertilizer plant as almost entirely real property instead of almost entirely personal property. The reassessment resulted in an increase in CRNF's annual property tax expense by an average of $11 million per year for each of the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009, $12 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 and $11 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012. CRNF did not agree with the county's classification of its nitrogen fertilizer plant and protested the classification and resulting valuation for each of those years to the Kansas Court of Tax Appeals, or COTA. However, CRNF has fully accrued and paid the property taxes the county claims are owed for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008 and has estimated and accrued for property tax for the year ended December 31, 2012. The first payment in respect to CRNF's 2012 property taxes was paid in December 2012 and the second payment will be made in May 2013. This property tax expense is reflected as a cost of good sold in the consolidated financial statements. In February, 2011, CRNF tried the 2008 case to COTA and in January 2012, COTA issued its decision holding that CRNF's fertilizer plant was almost entirely real property instead of almost entirely personal property. CRNF disagreed with the ruling and filed a petition for reconsideration with COTA (which was denied) and then filed an appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. CRNF also protested the valuation of the CRNF fertilizer plant for tax years 2009 through 2012, which cases remained pending before COTA. On February 25, 2013, Montgomery County and CRNF agreed to a settlement for tax years 2009 through 2012 which generally provides that the nitrogen fertilizer plant will be appraised at a total value of $35 million for tax years 2013 through 2016 which will lower CRNF's property taxes by approximately $11 million per year based on current mill levy rates. In addition, the settlement provides that Montgomery County will not challenge or contest CRNF's application for a ten year tax exemption pursuant to Kansas law for the UAN expansion and will support the approval of such application by COTA, the reviewing body for such exemption application. Finally, the settlement provides that CRNF will continue its appeal of the 2008 case and that Montgomery County will make a payment to CRNF for the 2008 tax year upon the final conclusion of the appeal, with the amount of the payment to depend on the appeal's outcome.

In addition, on February 25, 2013, CRRM also agreed to a settlement with Montgomery County that generally provides the Coffeyville refinery will be appraised at a total value of $160 million for tax years 2013 through 2016. This is a continuation of the settlement CRRM has had with Montgomery County for tax years 2007 through 2012.

On July 25, 2011, Mid-America Pipeline Company, LLC (“MAPL”) filed an application with the Kansas Corporation Commission (“KCC”) for the purpose of establishing rates (“New Rates”) effective October 1, 2011 for pipeline transportation service on MAPL's liquids pipelines running between Conway, Kansas and Coffeyville, Kansas (“Inbound Line”) and between Coffeyville, Kansas and El Dorado, Kansas (“Outbound Line”). CRRM ships refined fuels on the Outbound Line and CRRM ships natural gas liquids on the Inbound Line. On April 3, 2012, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement which resolved the rate dispute both at the KCC and at the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"). Among other provisions, the Settlement Agreement provides for pipeage contracts to be entered into between the parties with rates ("Settlement Rates") to be established for an initial one year period. The Settlement Rates consist of two components, a base rate and a pipeline integrity cost recovery rate along with an annual take or pay minimum transportation quantity. The Settlement Rate on the Inbound Line was effective April 1, 2012 and the Settlement Rate on the Outbound Line was effective June 1, 2012. Prior to the end of the initial one year term of the pipeage contracts, and prior to the end of each annual period thereafter until the tenth anniversary of each of the two pipeage contracts, MAPL will provide its estimate of pipeline integrity costs for the upcoming annual period and CRRM may either agree to pay a rate for such upcoming annual period which includes a recovery rate component sufficient to collect such pipeline integrity costs for such upcoming annual period subject to true-up to actual costs at the end of the annual period. FERC rates will be the same as the KCC rates.

Flood, Crude Oil Discharge and Insurance

Crude oil was discharged from CVR's Coffeyville refinery on July 1, 2007, due to the short amount of time available to shut down and secure the refinery in preparation for the flood that occurred on June 30, 2007. In connection with the discharge, CVR received in May 2008 notices of claims from 16 private claimants under the Oil Pollution Act ("OPA") in an aggregate amount of approximately $4 million (plus punitive damages). In August 2008, those claimants filed suit against CVR in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in Wichita (the "Angleton Case"). In October 2009 and June 2010, companion cases to the Angleton Case were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in Wichita, seeking a total of approximately $3 million (plus punitive damages) for three additional plaintiffs as a result of the July 1, 2007 crude oil discharge. CVR has settled all of the claims with the plaintiffs from the Angleton Case and has settled all of the claims except for one of the plaintiffs from the companion cases. CVR believes that the resolution of the remaining claim will not have a material adverse effect on our Energy segment's financial results.

As a result of the crude oil discharge that occurred on July 1, 2007, CVR entered into an administrative order on consent (the "Consent Order") with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") on July 10, 2007. As set forth in the Consent Order, the EPA concluded that the discharge of crude oil from CVR's Coffeyville refinery caused an imminent and substantial threat to the public health and welfare. Pursuant to the Consent Order, CVR agreed to perform specified remedial actions to respond to the discharge of crude oil from CVR's refinery. The substantial majority of all required remedial actions were completed by January 31, 2009. CVR prepared and provided its final report to the EPA in January 2011 to satisfy the final requirement of the Consent Order. In April 2011, the EPA provided CVR with a notice of completion indicating that CVR has no continuing obligations under the Consent Order, while reserving its rights to recover oversight costs and penalties.

On October 25, 2010, CVR received a letter from the United States Coast Guard on behalf of the EPA seeking $2 million in oversight cost reimbursement. CVR responded by asserting defenses to the Coast Guard's claim for oversight costs. On September 23, 2011, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), acting on behalf of the EPA and the United States Coast Guard, filed suit against CRRM in the United States District Court for the District of Kansasseeking recovery from CRRM related to alleged non-compliance with the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program (“RMP”), the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and the OPA. (See "Environmental, Health and Safety Matters" below.) CRRM has reached an agreement with the DOJ resolving its claims under CWA and OPA. The agreement is memorialized in a Consent Decree, that was filed with the court on February 12, 2013 with the Court (the “2013 Consent Decree”). Under the terms of the 2013 Consent Decree, CRRM has agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $0.6 million for CWA violations and reimburse the Coast Guard for oversight costs under OPA in the amount of $1.7 million. The 2013 Consent Decree also requires CRRM to make upgrades to the Coffeyville refinery, including flood control measures, the installation of river modeling and monitoring procedures, the implementation of a wet weather plan, and training employees on proper shutdown procedures during a flood. The parties also reached an agreement to settle DOJ's RMP claims, but DOJ has re-opened the negotiations. Any liability to DOJ related to the RMP claims is not expected to be material.

CVR is seeking insurance coverage for this release and for the ultimate costs for remediation and third-party property damage claims. On July 10, 2008, CVR filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against certain of CVR's environmental insurance carriers requesting insurance coverage indemnification for the June/July 2007 flood and crude oil discharge losses. Each insurer reserved its rights under various policy exclusions and limitations and cited potential coverage defenses. Although the Court has now issued summary judgment opinions that eliminate the majority of the insurance defendants' reservations and defenses, CVR cannot be certain of the ultimate amount or timing of such recovery because of the difficulty inherent in projecting the ultimate resolution of CVR's claims. CVR has received $25 million of insurance proceeds under its primary environmental liability insurance policy which constitutes full payment to CVR of the primary pollution liability policy limit.

The lawsuit with the insurance carriers under the environmental policies remains the only unsettled lawsuit with the insurance carriers related to these events.

Environmental, Health and Safety Matters

CRRM, Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC ("CRCT"), Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC ("CRT"), and Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC ("WRC"), all of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of CVR, and CRNF are subject to various stringent federal, state, and local Environmental, Health and Safety ("EHS") rules and regulations. Liabilities related to EHS matters are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Estimates of these costs are based upon currently available facts, existing technology, site-specific costs, and currently enacted laws and regulations. In reporting EHS liabilities, no offset is made for potential recoveries.

CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT own and/or operate manufacturing and ancillary operations at various locations directly related to petroleum refining and distribution and nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing. Therefore, CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT have exposure to potential EHS liabilities related to past and present EHS conditions at these locations. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and related state laws, certain persons may be liable for the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. These persons include the current owner or operator of property where a release or threatened release occurred, any persons who owned or operated the property when the release occurred, and any persons who disposed of, or arranged for the transportation or disposal of, hazardous substances at a contaminated property. Liability under CERCLA is strict, and under certain circumstances, joint and several, so that any responsible party may be held liable for the entire cost of investigating and remediating the release of hazardous substances. Similarly, the OPA generally subjects owners and operators of facilities to strict, joint and several liability for all containment and cleanup costs, natural resource damages, and potential governmental oversight costs arising from oil spills into the waters of the United States.

CRRM and CRT have agreed to perform corrective actions at the Coffeyville, Kansas refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg, Kansas terminal facility, pursuant to Administrative Orders on Consent issued under RCRA to address historical contamination by the prior owners (RCRA Docket No. VII-94-H-0020 and Docket No. VII-95-H-011, respectively). As of December 31, 2012, environmental accruals of $2 million were reflected in the consolidated balance sheets for probable and estimated costs for remediation of environmental contamination under the RCRA Administrative Orders. Accruals were determined based on an estimate of payment costs through 2031, for which the scope of remediation was arranged with the EPA, and were discounted at the appropriate risk free rates at December 31, 2012. The accruals include estimated closure and post-closure costs of $1 million for the two landfills at December 31, 2012.

CVR's management periodically reviews and, as appropriate, revises its environmental accruals. Based on current information and regulatory requirements, CVR's management believes that the accruals established for environmental expenditures are adequate.

CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT are subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local, environmental and health and safety laws and regulations governing the emission and release of hazardous substances into the environment, the treatment and discharge of waste water, the storage, handling, use and transportation of petroleum and nitrogen products, and the characteristics and composition of gasoline and diesel fuels. The ultimate impact on CVR's business of complying with evolving laws and regulations is not always clearly known or determinable due in part to the fact that our operations may change over time and certain implementing regulations for laws, such as the federal Clean Air Act, have not yet been finalized, are under governmental or judicial review or are being revised. These laws and regulations could result in increased capital, operating and compliance costs.

In 2007, the EPA promulgated the Mobile Source Air Toxic II (“MSAT II”) rule that requires the reduction of benzene in gasoline by 2011. CRRM and WRC are considered to be small refiners under the MSAT II rule and compliance with the rule is extended until 2015 for small refiners. As a result of our purchase of a controlling interest in CVR on May 4, 2012, CVR's MSATII projects have been accelerated by three months due to the loss of small refiner status. Capital expenditures to comply with the rule are expected to be approximately $59 million for CRRM and $94 million for WRC.

The Coffeyville refinery is subject to the Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”) which requires refiners to blend “renewable fuels” in with their transportation fuels or purchase renewable energy credits in lieu of blending. The EPA is required to determine and publish the applicable annual renewable fuel percentage standards for each compliance year by November 30 for the forthcoming year. The percentage standards represent the ratio of renewable fuel volume to gasoline and diesel volume. In 2012, about 9% of all fuel used was required to be “renewable fuel.” About 9.6% of all transportation fuel is required to be “renewable fuel” in 2013. Due to mandates in the RFS requiring increasing volumes of renewable fuels to replace petroleum products in the U.S. motor fuel market, there may be a decrease in demand for petroleum products. The petroleum business currently purchases RINs for some fuel categories on the open market as well as waiver credits for cellulosic biofuels from the EPA, in order to comply with RFS. Beginning in 2011, the Coffeyville refinery was required to blend renewable fuels into its gasoline and diesel fuel or purchase RINs in lieu of blending. The Wynnewood refinery is required to comply beginning in 2013. In the future, the petroleum business likely will be required to purchase additional RINs on the open market or waiver credits from the EPA to comply with RFS. The petroleum business cannot predict the future prices of RINs or waiver credits, but the costs to obtain the necessary number of RINs and waiver credits could likely be material. Additionally, the Coffeyville and Wynnewood refineries may be impacted by increased operating expenses and production costs to meet the mandated renewable fuel volumes to the extent that these increased costs cannot be passed on to the consumers.

The EPA is expected to propose "Tier 3" gasoline sulfur standards in 2013. If the EPA were to propose a standard at the level currently being discussed in the pre-proposal phase by the EPA, CRRM will need to make capital expenditures and install controls in order to meet the anticipated new standard. It is not anticipated that the Wynnewood refinery would require additional controls or capital expenditures to meet the anticipated new standard. The Company does not believe that costs associated with the EPA's proposed Tier 3 rule will be material.

In March 2004, CRRM and CRT entered into a Consent Decree (the "2004 Consent Decree") with the EPA and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (the "KDHE") to resolve air compliance concerns raised by the EPA and KDHE related to Farmland Industries Inc.'s prior ownership and operation of the Coffeyville crude oil refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities. Under the 2004 Consent Decree, CRRM agreed to install controls to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from its FCCU by January 1, 2011. In addition, pursuant to the 2004 Consent Decree, CRRM and CRT assumed clean-up obligations at the Coffeyville refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities.

In March 2012, CRRM entered into a "Second Consent Decree" with the EPA, which replaces the 2004 Consent Decree, as amended (other than certain financial assurance provisions associated with corrective action at the refinery and terminal under RCRA). The Second Consent Decree gives CRRM more time to install the FCCU controls from the 2004 Consent Decree and expands the scope of the settlement so that it is now considered a "global settlement" under the EPA's "National Petroleum Refining Initiative." Under the National Petroleum Refining Initiative, the EPA identified industry-wide noncompliance with four "marquee" issues under the Clean Air Act: New Source Review, Flaring, Leak Detection and Repair, and Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. The National Petroleum Refining Initiative has resulted in most U.S. refineries (representing more than 90% of the US refining capacity) entering into consent decrees imposing civil penalties and requiring the installation of pollution control equipment and enhanced operating procedures. Under the Second Consent Decree, CVR was required to pay a civil penalty of less than $1 million and complete the installation of FCCU controls required under the 2004 Consent Decree, add controls to certain heaters and boilers and enhance certain work practices relating to wastewater and fugitive emissions. The costs of complying with the Second Consent Decree are expected to be approximately $49 million, of which approximately $47 million is expected to be capital expenditures. CRRM also agreed to complete a voluntary environmental project that will reduce air emissions and conserve water at an estimated cost of $1 million. The incremental capital expenditures associated with the Second Consent Decree will not be material and will be limited primarily to the retrofit and replacement of heaters and boilers over a five to seven year time-frame. The Second Consent Decree was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on April 19, 2012.

WRC's refinery has not entered into a global settlement with the EPA and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (the "ODEQ") under the National Petroleum Refining Initiative, although it had discussions with the EPA and the ODEQ about doing so. Instead, WRC entered into a Consent Order with the ODEQ in August 2011 (the "Wynnewood Consent Order"). The Wynnewood Consent Order addresses some, but not all, of the traditional marquee issues under the National Petroleum Refining Initiative and addresses certain historic Clean Air Act compliance issues that are generally beyond the scope of a traditional global settlement. Under the Wynnewood Consent Order, WRC paid a civil penalty of $950,000 and agreed to install certain controls, enhance certain compliance programs, and undertake additional testing and auditing. A substantial portion of the costs of complying with the Wynnewood Consent Order were expended during the last turnaround. The remaining costs are expected to be $2 million. In consideration for entering into the Wynnewood Consent Order, WRC received a release from liability from ODEQ for matters described in the ODEQ order.

The EPA has investigated CRRM's operation for compliance with the RMP. On September 23, 2011, the DOJ, acting on behalf of the EPA and the United States Coast Guard, filed suit against CRRM in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (in addition to the matters described above, see “Flood, Crude Oil Discharge and Insurance”) seeking recovery from CRRM related to alleged non-compliance with the RMP. The Company has reached an agreement with DOJ to settle the RMP claims, but the DOJ re-opened the negotiations. Any liability to DOJ related to the RMP claims is not expected to be material. The lawsuit is stayed while the parties attempt to finalize and file the consent decree.

From time to time, the EPA has conducted inspections and issued information requests to CRNF with respect to CVR's compliance with the RMP and the release reporting requirements under CERCLA and the EPCRA. These previous investigations have resulted in the issuance of preliminary findings regarding CRNF's compliance status. In the fourth quarter of 2010, following CRNF's reported release of ammonia from its cooling water system and the rupture of its UAN vessel (which released ammonia and other regulated substances), the EPA conducted its most recent inspection and issued an additional request for information to CRNF. The EPA has not made any formal claims against CVR and CVR has not accrued for any liability associated with the investigations or releases.

WRC has entered into a series of Clean Water Act consent orders with ODEQ. The latest Consent Order (the "CWA Consent Order"), which supersedes other consent orders, became effective in September 2011. The CWA Consent Order addresses alleged noncompliance by WRC with its Oklahoma Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit limits. The CWA Consent Order requires WRC to take corrective action steps, including undertaking studies to determine whether the Wynnewood refinery's wastewater treatment plant capacity is sufficient. The Wynnewood refinery may need to install additional controls or make operational changes to satisfy the requirements of the CWA Consent Order. The cost of additional controls, if any, cannot be predicted at this time. However, based on CVR's experience with wastewater treatment and controls, CVR does not anticipate that the costs of any required additional controls or operational changes would be material.

Environmental expenditures are capitalized when such expenditures are expected to result in future economic benefits. For the period May 5, 2012 through December 31, 2012, capital expenditures were $21 million and were incurred to improve the environmental compliance and efficiency of the operations.

CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT each believes it is in substantial compliance with existing EHS rules and regulations. There can be no assurance that the EHS matters described above or other EHS matters which may develop in the future will not have a material adverse effect on CVR's business, financial condition, or results of operations.

On September 28, 2012, the Wynnewood refinery experienced an explosion in a boiler unit that had been temporarily shut down as part of the turnaround process. Two employees were fatally injured. Damage at the refinery was limited to the boiler; process units and other areas of the facility were unaffected. Additionally, there has been no evidence of environmental impact. The refinery was shut down for turnaround maintenance at the time of the incident. CVR completed an internal investigation of the incident and continues to cooperate with U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”) and Oklahoma Department of Labor (“ODL”) investigations.

Gaming

Aztar v. Marsh

Aztar filed a broker malpractice and breach of contract action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, Law Division (the “Court”) on August 12, 2010, against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Marsh, Inc., Marsh USA, Inc. and various fictitious Marsh entities (together, the "Marsh Defendants"). The claim seeks $100 million or more in compensatory damages against the Marsh Defendants, Aztar's risk management and insurance brokers at the time of a 2002 expansion of Tropicana AC by Aztar, including, but not limited to, lost profits, expenses arising from the interruption of operations, attorneys' fees, loss of the use of the insurance proceeds at issue, and litigation expenses resulting from the Marsh Defendants' failure to secure for Aztar business interruption and property damage coverage covering losses sustained by Aztar from the collapse of a parking garage that occurred at Tropicana AC on October 30, 2003.

The Marsh Defendants filed an answer on October 20, 2010 denying the material allegations of the complaint and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens in December 2010, which motion was denied by the Court on April 12, 2011. On August 18, 2011 the Marsh Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the Court should apply the Arizona Statue of Limitations to the action. Aztar filed an objection to the Marsh Defendants' motion on September 23, 2011 arguing, inter alia, that the New Jersey Statute of Limitations applies to the action. The Marsh Defendants filed its Reply on October 3, 2011. The motion was argued in January 2012. In April 2012, the Court granted the Marsh Defendants' motion for Summary Judgment dismissing Aztar's complaint with prejudice. Subsequently, Aztar filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court, which motion was denied. In September 2012, Aztar appealed the Court's decision to dismiss the case with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, which appeal is currently pending. Any recovery obtained by Aztar in this action will be recoverable by Tropicana as the current owner of Tropicana AC.

Railcar

Environmental Matters

ARI is subject to comprehensive federal, state, local and international environmental laws and regulations relating to the release or discharge of materials into the environment, the management, use, processing, handling, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes, or otherwise relating to the protection of human health and the environment. These laws and regulations not only expose ARI to liability for the environmental condition of its current or formerly owned or operated facilities, and its own negligent acts, but also may expose ARI to liability for the conduct of others or for ARI's actions that were in compliance with all applicable laws at the time these actions were taken. In addition, these laws may require significant expenditures to achieve compliance, and are frequently modified or revised to impose new obligations. Civil and criminal fines and penalties and other sanctions may be imposed for non-compliance with these environmental laws and regulations. ARI's operations that involve hazardous materials also raise potential risks of liability under common law. Management believes that there are no current environmental issues identified that would have a material adverse effect on ARI. Certain real property ARI acquired from ACF Industries LLC ("ACF") in 1994 has been involved in investigation and remediation activities to address contamination. Substantially all of the issues identified relate to the use of these properties prior to its transfer to ARI by ACF and for which ACF has retained liability for environmental contamination that may have existed at the time of transfer to ARI. ACF has also agreed to indemnify ARI for any cost that might be incurred with those existing issues. As of December 31, 2012, ARI does not believe it will incur material costs in connection with any investigation or remediation activities relating to these properties, but it cannot assure that this will be the case. If ACF fails to honor its obligations to ARI, ARI could be responsible for the cost of such remediation. ARI believes that its operations and facilities are in substantial compliance with applicable laws and regulations and that any noncompliance is not likely to have a material adverse effect on its operations or financial condition.

Other Matters

One of ARI's joint ventures entered into a credit agreement in December 2007. Effective August 5, 2009, ARI and the other initial partner acquired this loan from the lenders party thereto, with each party acquiring a 50% interest in the loan. The total commitment under the term loan is $60 million with an additional $10 million commitment under the revolving loan. ARI is responsible to fund 50% of the loan commitments. The balance outstanding on these loans, due to ARI, was $36 million of principal and accrued interest as of December 31, 2012. ARI has no remaining commitment on these loans as of December 31, 2012.

On September 2, 2009, a complaint was filed by George Tedder (the "Plaintiff") against ARI in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas. The Plaintiff alleged that ARI was liable for an injury that resulted during the Plaintiff's break on April 24, 2008. At trial on April 9, 2012, the jury ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, thus ARI recorded a related charge that was included in the consolidated financial results in the first quarter of 2012. After ARI appealed the initial ruling, the judge reduced the amount awarded to the Plaintiff. ARI intends to appeal the revised ruling.

Metals

Environmental Matters

Certain of PSC Metals' facilities are environmentally impaired in part as a result of operating practices at the sites prior to their acquisition by PSC Metals and as a result of PSC Metals' operations. PSC Metals has established procedures to periodically evaluate these sites, giving consideration to the nature and extent of the contamination. PSC Metals has provided for the remediation of these sites based upon management's judgment and prior experience. PSC Metals has estimated the liability to remediate these sites to be $29 million and $30 million at December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Management believes, based on past experience, that the vast majority of these environmental liabilities and costs will be assessed and paid over an extended period of time. PSC Metals believes that it will be able to fund such costs in the ordinary course of business.

Estimates of PSC Metals' liability for remediation of a particular site and the method and ultimate cost of remediation require a number of assumptions that are inherently difficult to make, and the ultimate outcome may be materially different from current estimates. Moreover, because PSC Metals has disposed of waste materials at numerous third-party disposal facilities, it is possible that PSC Metals will be identified as a PRP at additional sites. The impact of such future events cannot be estimated at the current time.

PSC Metals has been designated as a PRP under U.S. federal and state superfund laws with respect to certain sites with which PSC Metals may have had a direct or indirect involvement. It is alleged that PSC Metals and its subsidiaries or their predecessors transported waste to the sites, disposed of waste at the sites or operated the sites in question. PSC Metals has negotiated a settlement with the EPA that resolves PSC Metals and its predecessors' liability associated with the Port Refinery superfund site in the Village of Rye Brook, NY. PSC Metals made a one-time payment of $225,000 to resolve the matter. With respect to all other matters in which PSC Metals has been designated as a PRP under U.S. federal and state superfund laws, PSC Metals has reviewed the nature and extent of the allegations, the number, connection and financial ability of other named and unnamed PRPs and the nature and estimated cost of the likely remedy. Based on reviewing the nature and extent of the allegations, PSC Metals has estimated its liability to remediate these sites to be immaterial at each of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. If it is determined that PSC Metals has liability to remediate those sites and that more expensive remediation approaches are required in the future, PSC Metals could incur additional obligations, which could be material.

In November and December of 2011, PSC Metals received three notices of violation from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, or MDNR, for hazardous waste and water violations related to its Festus, Missouri location. PSC Metals has responded to the notices of violation and is cooperating with MDNR. PSC Metals is in the process of negotiating a settlement with MDNR that will resolve the three notices of violation referenced above. PSC Metals cannot estimate the cost of any settlement with MDNR at this time. PSC Metals believes that it has a claim for indemnification against the prior owner of the facility associated with the above-referenced notices of violation.

MDNR has undertaken sampling for lead at residences near PSC Metals' Festus yard. MDNR has indicated to PSC Metals that this sampling was initiated in response to citizen complaints regarding its Festus yard. MDNR has received the results of this sampling. PSC Metals has been provided with the MDNR sampling results and is undertaking a technical review with its environmental experts. PSC Metals has been informed by MDNR that of the approximately 50 residences that were sampled and tested, 15 tested above residential standards for lead contamination and may require some amount of limited soil remediation. Neither MDNR nor PSC Metals has undertaken a lead isotope or similar analysis that would tie the lead contamination that was discovered to a specific location or source. MDNR has requested that PSC Metals sample 17 additional residential properties to assess whether those sites are above residential standards for lead contamination. PSC Metals and MDNR are discussing the scope and extent of any future sampling and the potential for limited soil remediation. At this time, PSC Metals believes that it has adequately reserved for the cost of remediation associated with its Festus yard and the residential areas near the yard, should such remediation be required. However, as negotiations with MDNR are on-going and additional sampling could be required, PSC Metals cannot assess its liability with certainty at this time. To the extent that MDNR does seek to hold PSC Metals liable for off-site contamination, PSC Metals believes that such liability was retained by the prior owner of the Festus yard and it would have a claim for indemnification against the prior owner.

In 2011, PSC Metals entered into a consent decree with the EPA regarding PSC Metals' scrap processing facility located in Cleveland, Ohio. The EPA alleged that PSC Metals violated the requirements of Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, 42 USC Section 761, which requires scrap processors to either recover refrigerants from appliances in accordance with the procedures described in the applicable federal regulations or verify through certifications that refrigerants have previously been evacuated. The consent decree includes injunctive relief that, among other things, will require PSC Metals to offer refrigerant extraction services at 11 of its scrap processing facilities for the next three years. PSC Metals estimates that the cost associated with the required injunctive relief will range from $0.8 million to $1.7 million, exclusive of a civil penalty of $199,000 assessed in connection with the consent decree which PSC Metals paid in 2011.

Home Fashion

Environmental Matters

WPH is subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations governing, among other things, the discharge, storage, handling and disposal of a variety of hazardous and nonhazardous substances and wastes used in or resulting from its operations and potential remediation obligations. WPH's operations are also governed by U.S. federal, state, local and foreign laws, rules and regulations relating to employee safety and health which, among other things, establish exposure limitation for cotton dust, formaldehyde, asbestos and noise, and which regulate chemical, physical and ergonomic hazards in the workplace. WPH estimated its environmental accruals to be $1 million at both December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.

Other Matters

Mr. Icahn, through certain affiliates, owns 100% of Icahn Enterprises GP and approximately 93.2% of Icahn Enterprises' outstanding depositary units as of December 31, 2012. Applicable pension and tax laws make each member of a “controlled group” of entities, generally defined as entities in which there is at least an 80% common ownership interest, jointly and severally liable for certain pension plan obligations of any member of the controlled group. These pension obligations include ongoing contributions to fund the plan, as well as liability for any unfunded liabilities that may exist at the time the plan is terminated. In addition, the failure to pay these pension obligations when due may result in the creation of liens in favor of the pension plan or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") against the assets of each member of the controlled group.

As a result of the more than 80% ownership interest in us by Mr. Icahn’s affiliates, we and our subsidiaries are subject to the pension liabilities of all entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. One such entity, ACF, is the sponsor of several pension plans. All the minimum funding requirements of the Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, for these plans have been met as of December 31, 2012 and 2011. If the plans were voluntarily terminated, they would be underfunded by approximately $130 million and $112 million as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. These results are based on the most recent information provided by the plans’ actuaries. These liabilities could increase or decrease, depending on a number of factors, including future changes in benefits, investment returns, and the assumptions used to calculate the liability. As members of the controlled group, we would be liable for any failure of ACF to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon a termination of the ACF pension plans. In addition, other entities now or in the future within the controlled group in which we are included may have pension plan obligations that are, or may become, underfunded and we would be liable for any failure of such entities to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon termination of such plans.

The current underfunded status of the ACF pension plans requires ACF to notify the PBGC of certain “reportable events,” such as if we cease to be a member of the ACF controlled group, or if we make certain extraordinary dividends or stock redemptions. The obligation to report could cause us to seek to delay or reconsider the occurrence of such reportable events.

Starfire Holding Corporation ("Starfire") which is 100% owned by Mr. Icahn, has undertaken to indemnify us and our subsidiaries from losses resulting from any imposition of certain pension funding or termination liabilities that may be imposed on us and our subsidiaries or our assets as a result of being a member of the Icahn controlled group. The Starfire indemnity (which does not extend to pension liabilities of our subsidiaries that would be imposed on us as a result of our interest in these subsidiaries and not as a result of Mr. Icahn and his affiliates holding more than an 80% ownership interest in us) provides, among other things, that so long as such contingent liabilities exist and could be imposed on us, Starfire will not make any distributions to its stockholders that would reduce its net worth to below $250 million. Nonetheless, Starfire may not be able to fund its indemnification obligations to us.

Consolidated Leases

Consolidated future minimum lease payments under operating leases with initial terms of one or more years consist of the following at December 31, 2012:



Year	Amount
	(in millions)
2013	$	72
2014	61
2015	47
2016	41
2017	29
Thereafter	108
	$	358