Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies. Investment Dynegy Inc. On March 28, 2012 an action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entitled Silsby v. Icahn et. al. Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy") 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 which statements 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 that purports to be a class action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities between July 10, 2011 and March 9, 2012. We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims and filed a motion to dismiss on July 19, 2013. On April 30, 2014, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and the case was dismissed with prejudice. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal, which is currently pending. 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 that 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 $14 million and $14 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, 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 September 30, 2014, Federal-Mogul estimates reasonably possible material additional losses, above and beyond its best estimate of required remediation costs as recorded, to approximate $42 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 $25 million and $26 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, for asset retirement obligations ("ARO"), 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. Other Matters On April 25, 2014, a group of plaintiffs brought an action against Federal-Mogul Products, Inc. (“F-M Products”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Federal-Mogul, alleging injuries and damages associated with the discharge of chlorinated hydrocarbons by the former owner of a facility located in Kentucky. Since 1998, when F-M Products acquired the facility, it has been cooperating with the applicable regulatory agencies on remediating the prior discharges pursuant to an order entered into by the facility’s former owner. Federal-Mogul is currently unable to estimate any reasonably possible range of loss for reasons including that the plaintiffs did not claim any amount of damages in their complaint. F-M Products intends to vigorously defend this litigation. Energy Unconditional Purchase Obligations CVR has minimum required payments for unconditional purchase obligations of approximately $1.4 billion. This amount includes $930 million payable ratably over 17 years pursuant to petroleum transportation service agreements between CRRM and each of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline Limited Partnership and TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (together, "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. CVR leases various equipment, including railcars, and real properties under long-term operating leases expiring at various dates. For each of the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 lease expense was $2 million. For each of the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 lease expense was $7 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"). Under the Vitol Agreement, Vitol supplies the petroleum business with crude oil and intermediation logistics, which helps to reduce CVR Refining's inventory position and mitigate crude oil pricing risk. The Vitol Agreement has an initial term commencing on August 31, 2012 and extending through December 31, 2014 (the "Initial Term"). Following the Initial Term, the Vitol Agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year terms (each such term, a "Renewal Term") unless either party provides the other with notice of nonrenewal at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term. The Vitol Agreement was extended for a one-year Renewal Term through December 31, 2015. 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 management’s estimates of the outcomes will change due to uncertainties inherent in litigation and settlement negotiations. Except as described below for our Energy segment, there were no new proceedings or material developments in proceedings that we previously reported in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and filings of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q during 2014 (the "2014 Form 10-Qs"). In the opinion of CVR's management, the ultimate resolution of any other litigation matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the accompanying consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance that management’s beliefs or opinions with respect to liability for potential litigation matters will prove to be accurate. 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 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 stock, made by Carl C. Icahn and certain of his affiliates. On September 8, 2014, the court (in its decision granting GS’s motion for summary judgment against CVR) directed the court clerk to enter judgment against CVR in the amount of approximately $22.6 million, which has been fully accrued as of September 30, 2014. CVR filed its notice of appeal on October 3, 2014 and intends to vigorously pursue the appeal. On August 10, 2012, Deutsche Bank (“DB”) filed suit against CVR in state court in New York, alleging that CVR failed to pay DB 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. On September 8, 2014, the court (in its decision granting DB’s motion for summary judgment against CVR) directed the court clerk to enter judgment against CVR in the amount of approximately $22.7 million, which has been fully accrued as of September 30, 2014. CVR filed its notice of appeal on October 3, 2014 and intends to vigorously pursue the appeal. On October 27, 2014, CVR paid the judgment to DB, subject to a right of refund if it is successful on appeal. Environmental, Health and Safety Matters The petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses 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, Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC (“CRCT”), Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC (“WRC”) and Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC (“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 can 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 Oil Pollution Act generally subjects owners and operators of facilities to strict, joint and several liability for all containment and clean-up costs, natural resource damages, and potential governmental oversight costs arising from oil spills into waters of the United States, which has been broadly interpreted to include most water bodies including intermittent streams. 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, and the storage, handling, use and transportation of petroleum and nitrogen products, and the characteristics and composition of gasoline and diesel fuels. The ultimate impact 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. As previously reported, CVR's petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses are party to, or otherwise subject to administrative orders and consent decrees with federal, state and local environmental authorities, as applicable, addressing corrective actions under RCRA, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The petroleum business is also subject to (i) the Mobile Source Air Toxic II (“MSAT II”) rule which requires reductions of benzene in gasoline; (ii) the Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”), which requires refiners to blend “renewable fuels” in with their transportation fuels or purchase renewable fuel credits, known as RINs, in lieu of blending; and (iii) “Tier 3” gasoline sulfur standards. Except as otherwise described below, there have been no new developments or material changes to the environmental accruals or expected capital expenditures related to compliance with the foregoing environmental matters from those provided in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and 2014 Form 10-Qs. 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 or referenced herein 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. As of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, our Energy segment had environmental accruals of $1 million and $2 million, respectively. 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. Environmental expenditures are capitalized when such expenditures are expected to result in future economic benefits. For the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, capital expenditures were $23 million and $36 million, respectively, and were incurred for environmental compliance and efficiency of the operations. For the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, capital expenditures were $83 million and $74 million, respectively. The cost of RINs for the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 was $19 million and $57 million, respectively. The cost of RINs for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 was $82 million and $155 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the petroleum business' biofuel blending obligation was $36 million and $17 million, respectively, which was recorded in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. Coffeyville Refinery Incident On July 29, 2014, the Coffeyville refinery experienced a fire at its isomerization unit. Four employees were injured in the fire, including one employee who was fatally injured. The fire was extinguished, and the refinery was subsequently shut down due to a failure of its plant-wide Distributed Control System, which was directly caused by the fire. The Coffeyville refinery returned to operations in mid-August, with all units except the isomerization unit in operation by August 23, 2014. This interruption adversely impacted production of refined products for the petroleum business in the third quarter of 2014. Total gross repair and other costs recorded related to the incident for each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 were $6 million. CVR Refining maintains property damage insurance policies which have an associated deductible of $5 million for the Coffeyville refinery. CVR Refining anticipates amounts in excess of the $5 million deductible will be recoverable under the property insurance policies. As of September 30, 2014, CVR Refining recorded an insurance receivable related to the incident of approximately $1 million, which is included in other assets in consolidated financial statements. The recording of the receivable resulted in a reduction of cost of goods sold in the consolidated financial statements. CVR Refining also maintains workers' compensation insurance with a $0.5 million per accident deductible. During the outage at the Coffeyville refinery as discussed above, CVR Refining accelerated certain planned turnaround activities scheduled for 2015 and incurred $6 million in turnaround expenses for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014. 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 $28 million and $29 million at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. PSC Metals 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. In addition, PSC Metals recently learned that its Knoxville location was the subject of investigations by the State of Tennessee under the federal Superfund law. These investigations were performed by the State of Tennessee pursuant to a contract with the EPA. PSC Metals is exploring a potential settlement of the matter. Currently, PSC Metals cannot assess the impact of any cost or liability associated with these investigations. 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 September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. 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 ("NOV") from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”) for hazardous waste and water violations related to its Festus, Missouri location. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement with MDNR that resolves these NOVs. Currently, PSC Metals believes that it has established adequate reserves for the cost of this settlement. In addition, 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 and PSC Metals, as part of the resolution of MDNR's NOVs, have undertaken sampling for lead at residences near PSC Metals' Festus yard. Approximately 67 residences were sampled and tested, and of those, approximately 15 tested above residential standards for lead contamination. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement agreement with MDNR which resolves MNDR’s claims and requires limited soil remediation at the 15 residences. PSC Metals is in the process of completing the remediation required by the settlement agreement. Currently, 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. However, PSC Metals cannot assess its liability with certainty at this time. Additionally, PSC Metals believes that liability for off-site contamination was retained by the prior owner of the Festus yard and accordingly, 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 through October 2015. PSC Metals estimates that the total 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. On April 3, 2013, two citizen groups filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) for alleged storm water and process water discharges at PSC Metals' Nashville, TN facility that the citizen groups allege violate the CWA and PSC Metals' storm water discharge permit. The CWA requires that to maintain a citizen suit, the citizen plaintiffs must be able to show that the violations are on-going or are reasonably likely to reoccur. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement agreement with the citizen plaintiffs that resolves the citizen plaintiffs' claims. The settlement agreement requires, among other things, improvements to PSC Metals' Nashville facility in order to improve the quality of storm water discharges and more frequent storm water testing than what is currently required. Railcar On October 24, 2014, ARI filed a complaint in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Gyansys, Inc ("Gyansys"). The complaint asserts a claim against Gyansys for breaching its contract with ARI to implement an information technology system. ARI seeks to recover monetary damages in an amount still to be determined, but which it alleges exceeds $25 million. Gyansys has not yet filed a response to the suit, and may file one or more counterclaims. At this time, ARI does not have sufficient information to reasonably form an estimate of the potential outcome (gain or loss) of this litigation. Gaming Aztar v. Marsh As further described below, the Petition for Certification that Aztar Corporation ("Aztar") filed with the New Jersey Supreme Court was denied in February 2014, thereby concluding the litigation. 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. Aztar subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court, which was denied. In September 2012, Aztar filed an appeal of the Court's decision to dismiss the case with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. In September 2013, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied Aztar’s appeal substantially for the reasons set forth in the Court’s decision. Aztar filed a Petition for Certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which petition was denied by the New Jersey Supreme Court in February 2014, thereby concluding the litigation. Tropicana AC Tax Appeal Settlement In January 2013 we settled outstanding real estate tax appeals involving our Tropicana AC property with the City of Atlantic City. The settlement involves the tax years 2008 through 2012 and also covers negotiated real estate assessments for 2013 and 2014. Under the terms of the settlement, Tropicana AC will receive a refund of approximately $50 million in the form of credits against future year real estate tax bills beginning in 2013 and ending in 2017. The credits were to be front-loaded in 2013 and 2014 so that after the credits were applied, Tropicana AC paid $2 million in taxes in 2013. Tropicana utilized $16 million of credits as a reduction to operating expenses in the year ended December 31, 2013. In addition, Tropicana expensed $4 million in professional fees related to this settlement in the year ended December 31, 2013. In January 2014, Tropicana received $32 million in cash as payment to satisfy future credits which amount is included in other income, net in the consolidated statements of operations. Food Packaging Tax Matter During 2005, Viskase Brasil Embalagens Ltda. (“Viskase Brazil”) received three tax assessments by São Paulo tax authorities with respect to Viskase Brazil's alleged failure to pay value added and sales and services tax (“ICMS”) levied on the importation of raw materials, and sales of goods in and out of the State of São Paulo, and alleged improper credits taken, from 2000 through 2005. In late December 2012, São Paulo issued a decree announcing a special settlement program (“Settlement Program”) for eligible companies that wish to settle alleged ICMS liabilities arising prior to July 31, 2012. The Settlement Program offers significant reductions in interest and penalties to companies that choose to participate. On May 29, 2013, after consulting with its legal and tax advisors and considering the inherent uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the ongoing litigation, Viskase Brazil accepted participation in the Settlement Program, which allowed it to satisfy all of its remaining ICMS liabilities and related costs for $23 million. 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 approximately $1 million as of both September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. Other Matters Mr. Icahn, through certain affiliates, owns 100% of Icahn Enterprises GP and approximately 88.3% of Icahn Enterprises' outstanding depositary units as of September 30, 2014. 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 entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. As a result of our ownership of more than 80% in our subsidiaries, 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%. ACF and Federal-Mogul, are the sponsors 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 September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. If the plans were voluntarily terminated, they would be underfunded by approximately $443 million and $592 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, 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 and Federal-Mogul to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon a termination of the pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul. 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 pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul requires them to notify the PBGC of certain “reportable events,” such as if we cease to be a member of the ACF and Federal-Mogul 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 99.4% 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, and as such would not extend to the unfunded pension termination liability for Federal-Mogul) 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.

Commitments and Contingencies.

Investment

Dynegy Inc.

On March 28, 2012 an action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entitled Silsby v. Icahn et. al. Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy") 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 which statements 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 that purports to be a class action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities between July 10, 2011 and March 9, 2012. We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims and filed a motion to dismiss on July 19, 2013. On April 30, 2014, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and the case was dismissed with prejudice. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal, which is currently pending.

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 that 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 $14 million and $14 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, 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 September 30, 2014, Federal-Mogul estimates reasonably possible material additional losses, above and beyond its best estimate of required remediation costs as recorded, to approximate $42 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 $25 million and $26 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, for asset retirement obligations ("ARO"), 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.

Other Matters

On April 25, 2014, a group of plaintiffs brought an action against Federal-Mogul Products, Inc. (“F-M Products”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Federal-Mogul, alleging injuries and damages associated with the discharge of chlorinated hydrocarbons by the former owner of a facility located in Kentucky. Since 1998, when F-M Products acquired the facility, it has been cooperating with the applicable regulatory agencies on remediating the prior discharges pursuant to an order entered into by the facility’s former owner. Federal-Mogul is currently unable to estimate any reasonably possible range of loss for reasons including that the plaintiffs did not claim any amount of damages in their complaint. F-M Products intends to vigorously defend this litigation.

Energy

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

CVR has minimum required payments for unconditional purchase obligations of approximately $1.4 billion. This amount includes $930 million payable ratably over 17 years pursuant to petroleum transportation service agreements between CRRM and each of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline Limited Partnership and TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (together, "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.

CVR leases various equipment, including railcars, and real properties under long-term operating leases expiring at various dates. For each of the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 lease expense was $2 million. For each of the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 lease expense was $7 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"). Under the Vitol Agreement, Vitol supplies the petroleum business with crude oil and intermediation logistics, which helps to reduce CVR Refining's inventory position and mitigate crude oil pricing risk. The Vitol Agreement has an initial term commencing on August 31, 2012 and extending through December 31, 2014 (the "Initial Term"). Following the Initial Term, the Vitol Agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year terms (each such term, a "Renewal Term") unless either party provides the other with notice of nonrenewal at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term. The Vitol Agreement was extended for a one-year Renewal Term through December 31, 2015.

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 management’s estimates of the outcomes will change due to uncertainties inherent in litigation and settlement negotiations. Except as described below for our Energy segment, there were no new proceedings or material developments in proceedings that we previously reported in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and filings of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q during 2014 (the "2014 Form 10-Qs"). In the opinion of CVR's management, the ultimate resolution of any other litigation matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the accompanying consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance that management’s beliefs or opinions with respect to liability for potential litigation matters will prove to be accurate.

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 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 stock, made by Carl C. Icahn and certain of his affiliates. On September 8, 2014, the court (in its decision granting GS’s motion for summary judgment against CVR) directed the court clerk to enter judgment against CVR in the amount of approximately $22.6 million, which has been fully accrued as of September 30, 2014. CVR filed its notice of appeal on October 3, 2014 and intends to vigorously pursue the appeal.

On August 10, 2012, Deutsche Bank (“DB”) filed suit against CVR in state court in New York, alleging that CVR failed to pay DB 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. On September 8, 2014, the court (in its decision granting DB’s motion for summary judgment against CVR) directed the court clerk to enter judgment against CVR in the amount of approximately $22.7 million, which has been fully accrued as of September 30, 2014. CVR filed its notice of appeal on October 3, 2014 and intends to vigorously pursue the appeal. On October 27, 2014, CVR paid the judgment to DB, subject to a right of refund if it is successful on appeal.

Environmental, Health and Safety Matters

The petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses 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, Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC (“CRCT”), Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC (“WRC”) and Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC (“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 can 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 Oil Pollution Act generally subjects owners and operators of facilities to strict, joint and several liability for all containment and clean-up costs, natural resource damages, and potential governmental oversight costs arising from oil spills into waters of the United States, which has been broadly interpreted to include most water bodies including intermittent streams.

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, and the storage, handling, use and transportation of petroleum and nitrogen products, and the characteristics and composition of gasoline and diesel fuels. The ultimate impact 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.

As previously reported, CVR's petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses are party to, or otherwise subject to administrative orders and consent decrees with federal, state and local environmental authorities, as applicable, addressing corrective actions under RCRA, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The petroleum business is also subject to (i) the Mobile Source Air Toxic II (“MSAT II”) rule which requires reductions of benzene in gasoline; (ii) the Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”), which requires refiners to blend “renewable fuels” in with their transportation fuels or purchase renewable fuel credits, known as RINs, in lieu of blending; and (iii) “Tier 3” gasoline sulfur standards. Except as otherwise described below, there have been no new developments or material changes to the environmental accruals or expected capital expenditures related to compliance with the foregoing environmental matters from those provided in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and 2014 Form 10-Qs. 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 or referenced herein 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.

As of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, our Energy segment had environmental accruals of $1 million and $2 million, respectively. 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.

Environmental expenditures are capitalized when such expenditures are expected to result in future economic benefits. For the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, capital expenditures were $23 million and $36 million, respectively, and were incurred for environmental compliance and efficiency of the operations. For the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, capital expenditures were $83 million and $74 million, respectively.

The cost of RINs for the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 was $19 million and $57 million, respectively. The cost of RINs for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 was $82 million and $155 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the petroleum business' biofuel blending obligation was $36 million and $17 million, respectively, which was recorded in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.

Coffeyville Refinery Incident

On July 29, 2014, the Coffeyville refinery experienced a fire at its isomerization unit. Four employees were injured in the fire, including one employee who was fatally injured. The fire was extinguished, and the refinery was subsequently shut down due to a failure of its plant-wide Distributed Control System, which was directly caused by the fire. The Coffeyville refinery returned to operations in mid-August, with all units except the isomerization unit in operation by August 23, 2014. This interruption adversely impacted production of refined products for the petroleum business in the third quarter of 2014. Total gross repair and other costs recorded related to the incident for each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 were $6 million.

CVR Refining maintains property damage insurance policies which have an associated deductible of $5 million for the Coffeyville refinery. CVR Refining anticipates amounts in excess of the $5 million deductible will be recoverable under the property insurance policies. As of September 30, 2014, CVR Refining recorded an insurance receivable related to the incident of approximately $1 million, which is included in other assets in consolidated financial statements. The recording of the receivable resulted in a reduction of cost of goods sold in the consolidated financial statements. CVR Refining also maintains workers' compensation insurance with a $0.5 million per accident deductible.

During the outage at the Coffeyville refinery as discussed above, CVR Refining accelerated certain planned turnaround activities scheduled for 2015 and incurred $6 million in turnaround expenses for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014.

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 $28 million and $29 million at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. PSC Metals 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. In addition, PSC Metals recently learned that its Knoxville location was the subject of investigations by the State of Tennessee under the federal Superfund law. These investigations were performed by the State of Tennessee pursuant to a contract with the EPA. PSC Metals is exploring a potential settlement of the matter. Currently, PSC Metals cannot assess the impact of any cost or liability associated with these investigations. 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 September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. 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 ("NOV") from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”) for hazardous waste and water violations related to its Festus, Missouri location. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement with MDNR that resolves these NOVs. Currently, PSC Metals believes that it has established adequate reserves for the cost of this settlement. In addition, 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 and PSC Metals, as part of the resolution of MDNR's NOVs, have undertaken sampling for lead at residences near PSC Metals' Festus yard. Approximately 67 residences were sampled and tested, and of those, approximately 15 tested above residential standards for lead contamination. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement agreement with MDNR which resolves MNDR’s claims and requires limited soil remediation at the 15 residences. PSC Metals is in the process of completing the remediation required by the settlement agreement. Currently, 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. However, PSC Metals cannot assess its liability with certainty at this time. Additionally, PSC Metals believes that liability for off-site contamination was retained by the prior owner of the Festus yard and accordingly, 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 through October 2015. PSC Metals estimates that the total 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.

On April 3, 2013, two citizen groups filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) for alleged storm water and process water discharges at PSC Metals' Nashville, TN facility that the citizen groups allege violate the CWA and PSC Metals' storm water discharge permit. The CWA requires that to maintain a citizen suit, the citizen plaintiffs must be able to show that the violations are on-going or are reasonably likely to reoccur. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement agreement with the citizen plaintiffs that resolves the citizen plaintiffs' claims. The settlement agreement requires, among other things, improvements to PSC Metals' Nashville facility in order to improve the quality of storm water discharges and more frequent storm water testing than what is currently required.

Railcar

On October 24, 2014, ARI filed a complaint in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Gyansys, Inc ("Gyansys"). The complaint asserts a claim against Gyansys for breaching its contract with ARI to implement an information technology system. ARI seeks to recover monetary damages in an amount still to be determined, but which it alleges exceeds $25 million. Gyansys has not yet filed a response to the suit, and may file one or more counterclaims. At this time, ARI does not have sufficient information to reasonably form an estimate of the potential outcome (gain or loss) of this litigation.

Gaming

Aztar v. Marsh

As further described below, the Petition for Certification that Aztar Corporation ("Aztar") filed with the New Jersey Supreme Court was denied in February 2014, thereby concluding the litigation.

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. Aztar subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court, which was denied. In September 2012, Aztar filed an appeal of the Court's decision to dismiss the case with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. In September 2013, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied Aztar’s appeal substantially for the reasons set forth in the Court’s decision. Aztar filed a Petition for Certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which petition was denied by the New Jersey Supreme Court in February 2014, thereby concluding the litigation.

Tropicana AC Tax Appeal Settlement

In January 2013 we settled outstanding real estate tax appeals involving our Tropicana AC property with the City of Atlantic City. The settlement involves the tax years 2008 through 2012 and also covers negotiated real estate assessments for 2013 and 2014. Under the terms of the settlement, Tropicana AC will receive a refund of approximately $50 million in the form of credits against future year real estate tax bills beginning in 2013 and ending in 2017. The credits were to be front-loaded in 2013 and 2014 so that after the credits were applied, Tropicana AC paid $2 million in taxes in 2013. Tropicana utilized $16 million of credits as a reduction to operating expenses in the year ended December 31, 2013. In addition, Tropicana expensed $4 million in professional fees related to this settlement in the year ended December 31, 2013. In January 2014, Tropicana received $32 million in cash as payment to satisfy future credits which amount is included in other income, net in the consolidated statements of operations.

Food Packaging

Tax Matter

During 2005, Viskase Brasil Embalagens Ltda. (“Viskase Brazil”) received three tax assessments by São Paulo tax authorities with respect to Viskase Brazil's alleged failure to pay value added and sales and services tax (“ICMS”) levied on the importation of raw materials, and sales of goods in and out of the State of São Paulo, and alleged improper credits taken, from 2000 through 2005. In late December 2012, São Paulo issued a decree announcing a special settlement program (“Settlement Program”) for eligible companies that wish to settle alleged ICMS liabilities arising prior to July 31, 2012. The Settlement Program offers significant reductions in interest and penalties to companies that choose to participate.

On May 29, 2013, after consulting with its legal and tax advisors and considering the inherent uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the ongoing litigation, Viskase Brazil accepted participation in the Settlement Program, which allowed it to satisfy all of its remaining ICMS liabilities and related costs for $23 million.

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 approximately $1 million as of both September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013.

Other Matters

Mr. Icahn, through certain affiliates, owns 100% of Icahn Enterprises GP and approximately 88.3% of Icahn Enterprises' outstanding depositary units as of September 30, 2014. 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 entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. As a result of our ownership of more than 80% in our subsidiaries, 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%. ACF and Federal-Mogul, are the sponsors 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 September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. If the plans were voluntarily terminated, they would be underfunded by approximately $443 million and $592 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, 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 and Federal-Mogul to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon a termination of the pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul. 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 pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul requires them to notify the PBGC of certain “reportable events,” such as if we cease to be a member of the ACF and Federal-Mogul 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 99.4% 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, and as such would not extend to the unfunded pension termination liability for Federal-Mogul) 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.