Litigation and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Contingencies	Litigation and Contingencies The Company is subject to various claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business, including from time to time, contractual disputes, employment and environmental matters, product and general liability claims, claims that the Company has infringed on the intellectual property rights of others, and consumer and employment class actions. Some of the legal proceedings include claims for punitive as well as compensatory damages. In the ordinary course of business, the Company is also subject to regulatory and governmental examinations, information requests and subpoenas, inquiries, investigations, and threatened legal actions and proceedings. In connection with such formal and informal inquiries, the Company receives numerous requests, subpoenas, and orders for documents, testimony, and information in connection with various aspects of its activities. Securities Litigation Certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors have been named in shareholder derivative lawsuits. On October 29, 2018, a shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Streicher v. Polk, et al., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Streicher Derivative Action”), purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. On October 30, 2018, another shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Martindale v. Polk, et al., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Martindale Derivative Action”), asserting substantially similar claims purportedly on behalf of the Company against the same defendants. The complaints allege, among other things, violations of the federal securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The factual allegations underlying these claims are similar to the factual allegations made in the In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, further described below. The complaints seek unspecified damages and restitution for the Company from the individual defendants, the payment of costs and attorneys’ fees, and that the Company be directed to reform certain governance and internal procedures. The Streicher Derivative Action and the Martindale Derivative Action have been consolidated and the case is now known as In re Newell Brands Inc. Derivative Litigation (the “Newell Brands Derivative Action”), which is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On January 31, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware stayed the Newell Brands Derivative Action pending the resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in In re Newell Brands Inc. Securities Litigation and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al. (described below). The Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of Jarden (the “Registration Statement”). The action was filed on September 6, 2018, and is captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18. The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company’s financial results, trends, and metrics. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of damages being sought. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously. The Company and certain of its officers have been named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2017 and January 24, 2018. The first lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2018 and is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-10878 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey). The second lawsuit was filed on June 27, 2018 and is captioned Matthew Barnett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-11132 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey). On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated these two cases under Civil Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC) bearing the caption In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also named Hampshire County Council Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated case. The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects between February 6, 2017 and January 24, 2018. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously. Jarden Acquisition Under the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), any Jarden stockholder who did not vote in favor of adoption of the Merger Agreement, and otherwise complies with the provisions of Section 262 of the DGCL, was entitled to seek an appraisal of his or her shares of Jarden common stock by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as provided under Section 262 of the DGCL. As of December 31, 2018, dissenting stockholders collectively holding approximately 2.9 million shares of Jarden common stock had delivered (and not withdrawn) to Jarden written demands for appraisal. Two separate appraisal petitions, styled as Dunham Monthly Distribution Fund v. Jarden Corporation, Case No. 12454-VCS (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware), and Merion Capital LP v. Jarden Corporation, Case No. 12456-VCS (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware), respectively, were filed on June 14, 2016 by a total of ten purported Jarden stockholders seeking an appraisal of the fair value of their shares of Jarden common stock pursuant to Section 262 of the DGCL. A third appraisal petition, Fir Tree Value Master Fund, LP v. Jarden Corporation, Case No. 12546-VCS (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware), was filed on July 8, 2016 by two purported Jarden stockholders seeking an appraisal of the fair value of their shares of Jarden common stock pursuant to Section 262 of the DGCL. A fourth appraisal petition, Veritian Partners Master Fund LTP v. Jarden Corporation, Case No. 12650-VCS (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware), was filed on August 12, 2016 by two purported Jarden stockholders seeking an appraisal of the fair value of their shares of Jarden common stock pursuant to Section 262 of the DGCL. On or about October 3, 2016, the foregoing petitions were consolidated for joint prosecution under Case No. 12456-VCS, and, except as provided below, the litigation is ongoing. The holders of a total of approximately 10.6 million former Jarden shares were represented in these actions initially. On July 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017, Jarden and eleven of the dissenting stockholders, specifically including Merion Capital ERISA LP, Merion Capital LP, Merion Capital II LP, Dunham Monthly Distribution Fund, WCM Alternatives: Event-Driven Fund, Westchester Merger Arbitrage Strategy sleeve of the JNL Multi-Manager Alternative Fund, JNL/Westchester Capital Event Driven Fund, WCM Master Trust, The Merger Fund, The Merger Fund VL and SCA JP Morgan Westchester (collectively, the “Settling Petitioners”), entered into settlement agreements with respect to approximately 7.7 million former Jarden shares (collectively, the “Settlement Agreements”). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreements, in exchange for withdrawing their respective demands for appraisal of their shares of Jarden common stock and a full and final release of all claims, among other things, the Settling Petitioners received the original merger consideration provided for under the Merger Agreement, specifically (1) 0.862 of a share of Newell common stock, and (2) $21.00 in cash, per share of Jarden common stock (collectively, the “Merger Consideration”), excluding any and all other benefits, including, without limitation, the right to accrued interest, dividends, and/or distributions. Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreements, Newell issued 6.6 million shares of Newell common stock to the Settling Petitioners (representing the stock component of the Merger Consideration), and authorized payment to the Settling Petitioners of approximately $162 million (representing the cash component of the Merger Consideration). The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has dismissed with prejudice the appraisal claims for the Settling Petitioners. Following the settlements, claims from the holders of approximately 2.9 million former Jarden shares remained outstanding in the proceedings. The value of the merger consideration attributable to such shares based on the Company’s stock price on the closing date of the Jarden acquisition would have been approximately $171 million in the aggregate. The fair value of the shares of Jarden common stock held by these dissenting stockholders, as determined by the court, is payable in cash and could be lower or higher than the Merger Consideration to which such Jarden stockholders would have been entitled under the Merger Agreement. On July 19, 2019, the Court issued an order in which it determined that the fair value of the remaining Jarden shares as of the date of the Merger was $48.31 per share, reflecting approximately $140 million in value to be paid to the remaining dissenting shareholders. The Court also ordered the payment of accrued interest, compounded quarterly, and accruing from the date of closing to the date of payment. As of September 30, 2019, accrued interest on the Court’s award totaled approximately $37.0 million. On July 26, 2019, the remaining dissenting shareholders filed a Motion for Reargument asking the Court to amend its valuation to no less than the deal price of $59.21 per share. On September 16, 2019, the Court denied the Motion for Reargument and affirmed its $48.31 per share valuation. The Court entered judgment on October 2, 2019. On October 4, 2019, the Company paid the judgment in the amount of approximately $177 million, which cuts off interest accumulation on the judgment amount. On November 1, 2019, the remaining dissenter shareholders filed a Notice of Appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. Gizmo Children’s Cup Recall In June 2019, a subsidiary of the Company conducted an internal investigation to determine the root cause of an issue related to a product line in the Home and Outdoor Living segment that was reported to the Company by one of its retailers. The Company determined that because of an issue occurring infrequently, but on a random basis, during the manufacturing process, the Gizmo Children’s cup may present users with a potential safety concern because the silicone spout may detach from the nylon base. The Company reported the issue to the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, and issued a return authorization notice to retail customers, which resulted in a $13.0 million reduction of net revenue during the three month period ending June 30, 2019. The Company announced a recall of the product on August 27, 2019 offering consumers a replacement lid if they had an affected product. The Company accrued its best estimate for the cost it is obligated to reimburse retailers for shipping and handling incurred to return the product as of September 30, 2019. The Company announced a recall of the product on August 27, 2019 offering consumers a replacement lid if they had an affected product. The Company currently estimates it may incur $10.0 million to $15.0 million in costs associated with this matter. Environmental Matters The Company is involved in various matters concerning federal and state environmental laws and regulations, including matters in which the Company has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) and certain state environmental agencies as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) at contaminated sites under CERCLA and equivalent state laws. In assessing its environmental response costs, the Company has considered several factors, including the extent of the Company’s volumetric contribution at each site relative to that of other PRPs; the kind of waste; the terms of existing cost sharing and other applicable agreements; the financial ability of other PRPs to share in the payment of requisite costs; the Company’s prior experience with similar sites; environmental studies and cost estimates available to the Company; the effects of inflation on cost estimates; and the extent to which the Company’s, and other parties’, status as PRPs is disputed. The Company’s estimate of environmental remediation costs associated with these matters as of September 30, 2019, was $44.2 million, which is included in other accrued liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. No insurance recovery was taken into account in determining the Company’s cost estimates or reserves, nor do the Company’s cost estimates or reserves reflect any discounting for present value purposes, except with respect to certain long-term operations and maintenance CERCLA matters. Because of the uncertainties associated with environmental investigations and response activities, the possibility that the Company could be identified as a PRP at sites identified in the future that require the incurrence of environmental response costs and the possibility that sites acquired in business combinations may require environmental response costs, actual costs to be incurred by the Company may vary from the Company’s estimates. Lower Passaic River Matter U.S. EPA has issued General Notice Letters (“GNLs”) to over 100 entities, including the Company and Berol Corporation, a subsidiary of the Company (“Berol”), alleging that they are PRPs at the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, which includes a 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River and its tributaries. Seventy-two of the GNL recipients, including the Company on behalf of itself and its subsidiary Berol Corporation (the “Company Parties”), have taken over the performance of the remedial investigation (“RI”) and feasibility study (“FS”) for the Lower Passaic River. On April 11, 2014, while work on the RI/FS remained underway, U.S. EPA issued a Source Control Early Action Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”), which proposed four alternatives for remediation of the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River. U.S. EPA’s cost estimates for its cleanup alternatives ranged from approximately $315 million to approximately $3.2 billion in capital costs plus from $0.5 million to $1.8 million in annual maintenance costs for 30 years, with its preferred alternative carrying an estimated cost of approximately $1.7 billion plus an additional $1.6 million in annual maintenance costs for 30 years. In February 2015, the participating parties submitted to the U.S. EPA a draft RI, followed by submission of a draft FS in April 2015. The draft FS sets forth various alternatives for remediating the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River, ranging from a “no action” alternative, to targeted remediation of locations along the entire lower 17 mile stretch of the river, to remedial actions consistent with U.S. EPA’s preferred alternative as set forth in the FFS for the lower 8.3 miles coupled with monitored natural recovery and targeted remediation in the upper 9 miles. The cost estimates for these alternatives range from approximately $28.0 million to $2.7 billion, including related operation, maintenance and monitoring costs. U.S. EPA issued a conditional approval of the RI report in June 2019. U.S. EPA issued a Record of Decision for the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River in March 2016 (the “2016 ROD”). The 2016 ROD finalizes as the selected remedy the preferred alternative set forth in the FFS, which U.S. EPA estimates will cost $1.4 billion. Subsequent to the release of the 2016 ROD, U.S. EPA issued GNLs for the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River (the “2016 GNL”) to numerous entities, apparently including all previous recipients of the initial GNL, including the Company Parties, as well as several additional entities. The 2016 GNL states that U.S. EPA would like to determine whether one entity, Occidental Chemical Corporation (“OCC”), will voluntarily perform the remedial design for the selected remedy for the lower 8.3 miles, and that following execution of an agreement for the remedial design, U.S. EPA plans to begin negotiation of a remedial action consent decree “under which OCC and the other major PRPs will implement and/or pay for U.S. EPA’s selected remedy for the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River and reimburse U.S. EPA’s costs incurred for the Lower Passaic River.” In September 2016, OCC and EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for performance of the remedial design. On March 30, 2017, U.S. EPA sent a letter offering a cash settlement in the amount of $0.3 million to twenty PRPs, not including the Company Parties, for CERCLA Liability (with reservations, such as for Natural Resource Damages) in the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River. U.S. EPA further indicated in related correspondence that a cash-out settlement might be appropriate for additional parties that are “not associated with the release of dioxins, furans, or PCBs to the Lower Passaic River.” Then, by letter dated September 18, 2017, U.S. EPA announced an allocation process involving all GNL recipients except those participating in the first-round cash-out settlement, and five public entities. The letter affirms that U.S. EPA anticipates eventually offering cash-out settlements to a number of parties, and that it expects “that the private PRPs responsible for release of dioxin, furans, and/or PCBs will perform the OU2 lower 8.3 mile remedial action.” At this time, it is unclear how the cost of any cleanup would be allocated among any of the parties, including the Company Parties or any other entities. The site is also subject to a Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Following discussion with U.S. EPA regarding the 2015 draft FS, and U.S. EPA’s issuance of the 2016 ROD, the participating parties refocused the FS on the upper 9 miles of the Lower Passaic River. The parties submitted most portions of a draft Interim Remedy FS (the “Draft IR FS”) on August 12, 2019, setting forth remedial alternatives ranging from “no further action” to targeted dredging and capping with different targets for post-remedy surface weighted average concentration of contamination. The cost estimates for these alternatives range from approximately $6 million to $460 million. EPA has indicated it aims to have the IR FS finalized by the end of 2019, and to issue a Record of Decision for the upper 9 miles in the fourth quarter of 2020. OCC has asserted that it is entitled to indemnification by Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”) for its liability in connection with the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site. OCC has also asserted that Maxus’s parent company, YPF, S.A., and certain other affiliates (the “YPF Entities”) similarly must indemnify OCC, including on an “alter ego” theory. On June 17, 2016, Maxus and certain of its affiliates commenced a chapter 11 bankruptcy case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In connection with that proceeding, the YPF Entities are attempting to resolve any liability they may have to Maxus and the other Maxus entities undergoing the chapter 11 bankruptcy. An amended Chapter 11 plan of liquidation became effective in July 2017. In conjunction with that plan, Maxus and certain other parties, including the Company, entered into a mutual contribution release agreement (“Passaic Release”) pertaining to certain costs, but not costs associated with ultimate remedy. On June 30, 2018, OCC sued 120 parties, including the Company and Berol, in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey (“OCC Lawsuit”). OCC subsequently filed a separate, related complaint against 5 additional defendants. The OCC Lawsuit includes claims, counterclaims and cross-claims for cost recovery, contribution, and declaratory judgement under CERCLA. The current, primary focus of the claims, counterclaims and cross-claims against the defendants is on certain past and future costs for investigation, design and remediation of the 17- mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River and its tributaries, other than those subject to the Passaic Release. The complaint notes, however, that OCC may broaden its claims in the future if and when EPA selects remedial actions for other portions of the Site or completes a Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Given the uncertainties pertaining to this matter, including that U.S. EPA is still reviewing the FS, that no framework for or agreement on allocation for the investigation and ultimate remediation has been developed, and that there exists the potential for further litigation regarding costs and cost sharing, the extent to which the Company Parties may be held liable or responsible is not yet known. OCC stated in a subsequent filing that it “anticipates” asserting additional claims against the defendants “regarding Newark Bay,” which is also part of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, after U.S. EPA has decided the Newark Bay remedy. Based on currently known facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that this matter is reasonably likely to have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, including, among other factors, because there are numerous other parties who will likely share in any costs of remediation and/or damages. However, in the event of one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter and the impact on the Company’s results of operations could be material. Because of the uncertainties associated with environmental investigations and response activities, the possibility that the Company could be identified as a PRP at sites identified in the future that require the incurrence of environmental response costs and the possibility that sites acquired in business combinations may require environmental response costs, actual costs to be incurred by the Company may vary from the Company’s estimates. Frederick County, Virginia In February 2019, Rubbermaid Commercial Products LLC, a subsidiary of the Company (“Rubbermaid Commercial Products”), was sued in Frederick County, Virginia by the Virginia Director of the Department of Environmental Quality and the State Air Pollution Control Board. The complaint alleged that Rubbermaid Commercial Products unlawfully constructed and operated certain equipment at one of its facilities prior to obtaining an air permit and failed to comply with certain reporting obligations under the permit once issued and sought unspecified civil penalties and injunctive relief. The parties entered into a Consent Order in September 2019, pursuant to which Rubbermaid Commercial Products paid a civil penalty of approximately $0.2 million and agreed to conduct specified environmental compliance activities, resulting in dismissal of the complaint and resolution of the matter. Other Matters Although management of the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings with certainty, it believes that the ultimate resolution of the Company’s proceedings, including any amounts it may be required to pay in excess of amounts reserved, will not have a material effect on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements, except as otherwise described above. In the normal course of business and as part of its acquisition and divestiture strategy, the Company may provide certain representations and indemnifications related to legal, environmental, product liability, tax or other types of issues. Based on the nature of these representations and indemnifications, it is not possible to predict the maximum potential payments under all of these agreements due to the conditional nature of the Company’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under these agreements did not have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations. As of September 30, 2019, the Company had approximately $64 million in standby letters of credit primarily related to the Company’s self-insurance programs, including workers’ compensation, product liability and medical expenses.

The Company is subject to various claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business, including from time to time, contractual disputes, employment and environmental matters, product and general liability claims, claims that the Company has infringed on the intellectual property rights of others, and consumer and employment class actions. Some of the legal proceedings include claims for punitive as well as compensatory damages. In the ordinary course of business, the Company is also subject to regulatory and governmental examinations, information requests and subpoenas, inquiries, investigations, and threatened legal actions and proceedings. In connection with such formal and informal inquiries, the Company receives numerous requests, subpoenas, and orders for documents, testimony, and information in connection with various aspects of its activities.

Certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors have been named in shareholder derivative lawsuits. On October 29, 2018, a shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Streicher v. Polk, et al., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Streicher Derivative Action”), purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. On October 30, 2018, another shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Martindale v. Polk, et al., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Martindale Derivative Action”), asserting substantially similar claims purportedly on behalf of the Company against the same defendants. The complaints allege, among other things, violations of the federal securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The factual allegations underlying these claims are similar to the factual allegations made in the In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, further described below. The complaints seek unspecified damages and restitution for the Company from the individual defendants, the payment of costs and attorneys’ fees, and that the Company be directed to reform certain governance and internal procedures. The Streicher Derivative Action and the Martindale Derivative Action have been consolidated and the case is now known as In re Newell Brands Inc. Derivative Litigation (the “Newell Brands Derivative Action”), which is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On January 31, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware stayed the Newell Brands Derivative Action pending the resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in In re Newell Brands Inc. Securities Litigation and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al. (described below).

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of Jarden (the “Registration Statement”). The action was filed on September 6, 2018, and is captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18. The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company’s financial results, trends, and metrics. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of damages being sought. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

the Company's common stock between February 6, 2017 and January 24, 2018. The first lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2018 and is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-10878 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey). The second lawsuit was filed on June 27, 2018 and is captioned Matthew Barnett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-11132 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey). On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated these two cases under Civil Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC) bearing the caption In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also named Hampshire County Council Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated case. The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects between February 6, 2017 and January 24, 2018. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

Under the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), any Jarden stockholder who did not vote in favor of adoption of the Merger Agreement, and otherwise complies with the provisions of Section 262 of the DGCL, was entitled to seek an appraisal of his or her shares of Jarden common stock by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as provided under Section 262 of the DGCL. As of December 31, 2018, dissenting stockholders collectively holding approximately 2.9 million shares of Jarden common stock had delivered (and not withdrawn) to Jarden written demands for appraisal. Two separate appraisal petitions, styled as Dunham Monthly Distribution Fund v. Jarden Corporation, Case No. 12454-VCS (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware), and Merion Capital LP v. Jarden Corporation, Case No. 12456-VCS (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware), respectively, were filed on June 14, 2016 by a total of ten purported Jarden stockholders seeking an appraisal of the fair value of their shares of Jarden common stock pursuant to Section 262 of the DGCL. A third appraisal petition, Fir Tree Value Master Fund, LP v. Jarden Corporation, Case No. 12546-VCS (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware), was filed on July 8, 2016 by two purported Jarden stockholders seeking an appraisal of the fair value of their shares of Jarden common stock pursuant to Section 262 of the DGCL. A fourth appraisal petition, Veritian Partners Master Fund LTP v. Jarden Corporation, Case No. 12650-VCS (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware), was filed on August 12, 2016 by two purported Jarden stockholders seeking an appraisal of the fair value of their shares of Jarden common stock pursuant to Section 262 of the DGCL. On or about October 3, 2016, the foregoing petitions were consolidated for joint prosecution under Case No. 12456-VCS, and, except as provided below, the litigation is ongoing. The holders of a total of approximately 10.6 million former Jarden shares were represented in these actions initially.

On July 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017, Jarden and eleven of the dissenting stockholders, specifically including Merion Capital ERISA LP, Merion Capital LP, Merion Capital II LP, Dunham Monthly Distribution Fund, WCM Alternatives: Event-Driven Fund, Westchester Merger Arbitrage Strategy sleeve of the JNL Multi-Manager Alternative Fund, JNL/Westchester Capital Event Driven Fund, WCM Master Trust, The Merger Fund, The Merger Fund VL and SCA JP Morgan Westchester (collectively, the “Settling Petitioners”), entered into settlement agreements with respect to approximately 7.7 million former Jarden shares (collectively, the “Settlement Agreements”). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreements, in exchange for withdrawing their respective demands for appraisal of their shares of Jarden common stock and a full and final release of all claims, among other things, the Settling Petitioners received the original merger consideration provided for under the Merger Agreement, specifically (1) 0.862 of a share of Newell common stock, and (2) $21.00 in cash, per share of Jarden common stock (collectively, the “Merger Consideration”), excluding any and all other benefits, including, without limitation, the right to accrued interest, dividends, and/or distributions. Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreements, Newell issued 6.6 million shares of Newell common stock to the Settling Petitioners (representing the stock component of the Merger Consideration), and authorized payment to the Settling Petitioners of approximately $162 million (representing the cash component of the Merger Consideration). The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has dismissed with prejudice the appraisal claims for the Settling Petitioners.

Following the settlements, claims from the holders of approximately 2.9 million former Jarden shares remained outstanding in the proceedings. The value of the merger consideration attributable to such shares based on the Company’s stock price on the closing date of the Jarden acquisition would have been approximately $171 million in the aggregate. The fair value of the shares of Jarden common stock held by these dissenting stockholders, as determined by the court, is payable in cash and could be lower or higher than the Merger Consideration to which such Jarden stockholders would have been entitled under the Merger Agreement.

shareholders. The Court also ordered the payment of accrued interest, compounded quarterly, and accruing from the date of closing to the date of payment. As of September 30, 2019, accrued interest on the Court’s award totaled approximately $37.0 million. On July 26, 2019, the remaining dissenting shareholders filed a Motion for Reargument asking the Court to amend its valuation to no less than the deal price of $59.21 per share. On September 16, 2019, the Court denied the Motion for Reargument and affirmed its $48.31 per share valuation. The Court entered judgment on October 2, 2019. On October 4, 2019, the Company paid the judgment in the amount of approximately $177 million, which cuts off interest accumulation on the judgment amount. On November 1, 2019, the remaining dissenter shareholders filed a Notice of Appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court.

In June 2019, a subsidiary of the Company conducted an internal investigation to determine the root cause of an issue related to a product line in the Home and Outdoor Living segment that was reported to the Company by one of its retailers. The Company determined that because of an issue occurring infrequently, but on a random basis, during the manufacturing process, the Gizmo Children’s cup may present users with a potential safety concern because the silicone spout may detach from the nylon base. The Company reported the issue to the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, and issued a return authorization notice to retail customers, which resulted in a $13.0 million reduction of net revenue during the three month period ending June 30, 2019. The Company announced a recall of the product on August 27, 2019 offering consumers a replacement lid if they had an affected product. The Company accrued its best estimate for the cost it is obligated to reimburse retailers for shipping and handling incurred to return the product as of September 30, 2019. The Company announced a recall of the product on August 27, 2019 offering consumers a replacement lid if they had an affected product. The Company currently estimates it may incur $10.0 million to $15.0 million in costs associated with this matter.

The Company is involved in various matters concerning federal and state environmental laws and regulations, including matters in which the Company has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) and certain state environmental agencies as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) at contaminated sites under CERCLA and equivalent state laws. In assessing its environmental response costs, the Company has considered several factors, including the extent of the Company’s volumetric contribution at each site relative to that of other PRPs; the kind of waste; the terms of existing cost sharing and other applicable agreements; the financial ability of other PRPs to share in the payment of requisite costs; the Company’s prior experience with similar sites; environmental studies and cost estimates available to the Company; the effects of inflation on cost estimates; and the extent to which the Company’s, and other parties’, status as PRPs is disputed.

The Company’s estimate of environmental remediation costs associated with these matters as of September 30, 2019, was $44.2 million, which is included in other accrued liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. No insurance recovery was taken into account in determining the Company’s cost estimates or reserves, nor do the Company’s cost estimates or reserves reflect any discounting for present value purposes, except with respect to certain long-term operations and maintenance CERCLA matters. Because of the uncertainties associated with environmental investigations and response activities, the possibility that the Company could be identified as a PRP at sites identified in the future that require the incurrence of environmental response costs and the possibility that sites acquired in business combinations may require environmental response costs, actual costs to be incurred by the Company may vary from the Company’s estimates.

U.S. EPA has issued General Notice Letters (“GNLs”) to over 100 entities, including the Company and Berol Corporation, a subsidiary of the Company (“Berol”), alleging that they are PRPs at the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, which includes a 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River and its tributaries. Seventy-two of the GNL recipients, including the Company on behalf of itself and its subsidiary Berol Corporation (the “Company Parties”), have taken over the performance of the remedial investigation (“RI”) and feasibility study (“FS”) for the Lower Passaic River. On April 11, 2014, while work on the RI/FS remained underway, U.S. EPA issued a Source Control Early Action Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”), which proposed four alternatives for remediation of the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River. U.S. EPA’s cost estimates for its cleanup alternatives ranged from approximately $315 million to approximately $3.2 billion in capital costs plus from $0.5 million to $1.8 million in annual maintenance costs for 30 years, with its preferred alternative carrying an estimated cost of approximately $1.7 billion plus an additional $1.6 million in annual maintenance costs for 30 years. In February 2015, the participating parties submitted to the U.S. EPA a draft RI, followed by submission of a draft FS in April 2015. The draft FS sets forth various alternatives for remediating the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River, ranging from a “no action” alternative, to targeted remediation of locations along the entire lower 17 mile stretch of the river, to remedial actions consistent with U.S. EPA’s preferred alternative as set forth in the FFS for the lower 8.3 miles coupled with monitored natural recovery and targeted remediation in the upper 9 miles. The cost estimates for these alternatives range from approximately $28.0 million to $2.7 billion, including related operation, maintenance and monitoring costs. U.S. EPA issued a conditional approval of the RI report in June 2019.

U.S. EPA issued a Record of Decision for the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River in March 2016 (the “2016 ROD”). The 2016 ROD finalizes as the selected remedy the preferred alternative set forth in the FFS, which U.S. EPA estimates will cost $1.4 billion. Subsequent to the release of the 2016 ROD, U.S. EPA issued GNLs for the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River (the “2016 GNL”) to numerous entities, apparently including all previous recipients of the initial GNL, including the Company Parties, as well as several additional entities. The 2016 GNL states that U.S. EPA would like to determine whether one entity, Occidental Chemical Corporation (“OCC”), will voluntarily perform the remedial design for the selected remedy for the lower 8.3 miles, and that following execution of an agreement for the remedial design, U.S. EPA plans to begin negotiation of a remedial action consent decree “under which OCC and the other major PRPs will implement and/or pay for U.S. EPA’s selected remedy for the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River and reimburse U.S. EPA’s costs incurred for the Lower Passaic River.”

In September 2016, OCC and EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for performance of the remedial design. On March 30, 2017, U.S. EPA sent a letter offering a cash settlement in the amount of $0.3 million to twenty PRPs, not including the Company Parties, for CERCLA Liability (with reservations, such as for Natural Resource Damages) in the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River. U.S. EPA further indicated in related correspondence that a cash-out settlement might be appropriate for additional parties that are “not associated with the release of dioxins, furans, or PCBs to the Lower Passaic River.” Then, by letter dated September 18, 2017, U.S. EPA announced an allocation process involving all GNL recipients except those participating in the first-round cash-out settlement, and five public entities. The letter affirms that U.S. EPA anticipates eventually offering cash-out settlements to a number of parties, and that it expects “that the private PRPs responsible for release of dioxin, furans, and/or PCBs will perform the OU2 lower 8.3 mile remedial action.” At this time, it is unclear how the cost of any cleanup would be allocated among any of the parties, including the Company Parties or any other entities. The site is also subject to a Natural Resource Damage Assessment.

Following discussion with U.S. EPA regarding the 2015 draft FS, and U.S. EPA’s issuance of the 2016 ROD, the participating parties refocused the FS on the upper 9 miles of the Lower Passaic River. The parties submitted most portions of a draft Interim Remedy FS (the “Draft IR FS”) on August 12, 2019, setting forth remedial alternatives ranging from “no further action” to targeted dredging and capping with different targets for post-remedy surface weighted average concentration of contamination. The cost estimates for these alternatives range from approximately $6 million to $460 million. EPA has indicated it aims to have the IR FS finalized by the end of 2019, and to issue a Record of Decision for the upper 9 miles in the fourth quarter of 2020.

OCC has asserted that it is entitled to indemnification by Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”) for its liability in connection with the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site. OCC has also asserted that Maxus’s parent company, YPF, S.A., and certain other affiliates (the “YPF Entities”) similarly must indemnify OCC, including on an “alter ego” theory. On June 17, 2016, Maxus and certain of its affiliates commenced a chapter 11 bankruptcy case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In connection with that proceeding, the YPF Entities are attempting to resolve any liability they may have to Maxus and the other Maxus entities undergoing the chapter 11 bankruptcy. An amended Chapter 11 plan of liquidation became effective in July 2017. In conjunction with that plan, Maxus and certain other parties, including the Company, entered into a mutual contribution release agreement (“Passaic Release”) pertaining to certain costs, but not costs associated with ultimate remedy.

On June 30, 2018, OCC sued 120 parties, including the Company and Berol, in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey (“OCC Lawsuit”). OCC subsequently filed a separate, related complaint against 5 additional defendants. The OCC Lawsuit includes claims, counterclaims and cross-claims for cost recovery, contribution, and declaratory judgement under CERCLA. The current, primary focus of the claims, counterclaims and cross-claims against the defendants is on certain past and future costs for investigation, design and remediation of the 17- mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River and its tributaries, other than those subject to the Passaic Release. The complaint notes, however, that OCC may broaden its claims in the future if and when EPA selects remedial actions for other portions of the Site or completes a Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Given the uncertainties pertaining to this matter, including that U.S. EPA is still reviewing the FS, that no framework for or agreement on allocation for the investigation and ultimate remediation has been developed, and that there exists the potential for further litigation regarding costs and cost sharing, the extent to which the Company Parties may be held liable or responsible is not yet known. OCC stated in a subsequent filing that it “anticipates” asserting additional claims against the defendants “regarding Newark Bay,” which is also part of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, after U.S. EPA has decided the Newark Bay remedy.

Based on currently known facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that this matter is reasonably likely to have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, including, among other factors, because there are numerous other parties who will likely share in any costs of remediation and/or damages. However, in the event of one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter and the impact on the Company’s results of operations could be material.

Because of the uncertainties associated with environmental investigations and response activities, the possibility that the Company could be identified as a PRP at sites identified in the future that require the incurrence of environmental response costs and the possibility that sites acquired in business combinations may require environmental response costs, actual costs to be incurred by the Company may vary from the Company’s estimates.

In February 2019, Rubbermaid Commercial Products LLC, a subsidiary of the Company (“Rubbermaid Commercial Products”), was sued in Frederick County, Virginia by the Virginia Director of the Department of Environmental Quality and the State Air Pollution Control Board. The complaint alleged that Rubbermaid Commercial Products unlawfully constructed and operated certain equipment at one of its facilities prior to obtaining an air permit and failed to comply with certain reporting obligations under the permit once issued and sought unspecified civil penalties and injunctive relief. The parties entered into a Consent Order in September 2019, pursuant to which Rubbermaid Commercial Products paid a civil penalty of approximately $0.2 million and agreed to conduct specified environmental compliance activities, resulting in dismissal of the complaint and resolution of the matter.

In the normal course of business and as part of its acquisition and divestiture strategy, the Company may provide certain representations and indemnifications related to legal, environmental, product liability, tax or other types of issues. Based on the nature of these representations and indemnifications, it is not possible to predict the maximum potential payments under all of these agreements due to the conditional nature of the Company’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under these agreements did not have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.