Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Mar. 29, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	11. Commitments and Contingencies Legacy Matters Related to Former Management The Company is a party to several lawsuits involving disputes with former management, including its former chief executive officer, Mr. L. Dennis Kozlowski, its former chief financial officer, Mr. Mark Swartz and a former director, Mr. Frank Walsh Jr. The Company has filed civil complaints against Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz for breach of fiduciary duty and other wrongful conduct relating to alleged abuses of the Company's Key Employee Loan Program and relocation program, unauthorized bonuses, unauthorized payments, self dealing transactions and other improper conduct. In connection with Tyco's affirmative actions against Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz, Mr. Kozlowski, through counterclaims, and Mr. Swartz, through a separate lawsuit, are seeking an aggregate of approximately $140 million allegedly due in connection with their compensation and retention arrangements and under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Mr. Walsh sought indemnification for legal and other expenses incurred by him in connection with the Company's affirmative action against him for breaches of fiduciary duties. With respect to Mr. Kozlowski, on December 1, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of several of the Company's affirmative claims against him before trial, while dismissing all of Mr. Kozlowski's counterclaims for pay and benefits after 1995. Prior to the commencement of trial scheduled for August 2012, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter, with Mr. Kozlowski agreeing to release the Company from any claims to monetary amounts related to compensation, retention or other arrangements alleged to have existed between him and the Company. Although the parties have reached an agreement in principle, until the settlement agreement is signed, the Company will continue to maintain the amounts recorded in its Consolidated Balance Sheet, which reflect a net liability of approximately $91 million, for the amounts allegedly due under his compensation and retention arrangements and under ERISA. With respect to Mr. Swartz, on March 3, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Company's motion for summary judgment as to liability for its affirmative actions and further ruled that issues related to damages would need to be resolved at trial. During the second quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company reversed a $50 million liability related to Mr. Swartz's pay and benefits due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, which was recorded in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. On May 15, 2012, Mr. Swartz filed a lawsuit against Tyco in New York state court claiming entitlement to monies under ERISA. The Company removed the case to the U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York and filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Swartz's claims for multiple reasons, including that the statute of limitations had expired, at the latest, during the second quarter of fiscal 2012. A trial to determine the Company's damages from Mr. Swartz's breaches of fiduciary duty concluded on October 17, 2012. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court ruled that the Company was entitled to recover all monies earned by Mr. Swartz in connection with his employment by Tyco between September 1, 1995 and June 1, 2002. The Company filed a motion requesting the entry of monetary sum certain judgment in conformity with the Court's ruling regarding the time period of disgorgement. The motion also requested interest related to the monies Mr. Swartz was found to have unlawfully taken from the Company. In March 2013, the Court entered an order awarding the Company's request for interest. In connection with Mr. Swartz's affirmative claims against the Company, the Court dismissed all of Mr. Swartz's claims except one claim in which Mr. Swartz contends he is entitled to reimbursement from the Company for taxes he paid in connection with his 2002 Separation Agreement. The Court has not opined on the merits of this claim, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this claim. With respect to Mr. Walsh, in June 2002, the Company filed a civil complaint against him for breach of fiduciary duty, inducing breaches of fiduciary duty and related wrongful conduct involving a $20 million payment by Tyco, $10 million of which was paid to Mr. Walsh with the balance paid to a charity of which Mr. Walsh is trustee. The payment was purportedly made for Mr. Walsh's assistance in arranging the Company's acquisition of The CIT Group, Inc. On December 17, 2002, Mr. Walsh pleaded guilty to a felony violation of New York law in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, (New York County) and settled a civil action for violation of federal securities laws brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Both the felony charge and the civil action were brought against Mr. Walsh based on such payment. The felony charge accused Mr. Walsh of intentionally concealing information concerning the payment from Tyco's directors and shareholders while engaged in the sale of Tyco securities in the State of New York. The SEC action alleged that Mr. Walsh knew that the registration statement covering the sale of Tyco securities as part of the CIT Group acquisition contained a material misrepresentation concerning fees payable in connection with the acquisition. Pursuant to the plea and settlement, Mr. Walsh paid $20 million in restitution to Tyco on December 17, 2002. In October 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Company's affirmative claims for recovery of damages against Mr. Walsh. In January 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling that Tyco's Board of Directors could ratify breaches of fiduciary duties owed by Mr. Walsh to Tyco's shareholders, and remanded the case to the District Court to resolve certain issues relating to consequential damages. On June 20, 2012, the District Court ruled in Tyco's favor and entered a judgment against Mr. Walsh. Separately, Mr. Walsh filed a New York state court claim against the Company asserting his entitlement to indemnification. In March 2013, Mr. Walsh and the Company entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims they had against each other related to these lawsuits with no payments made by either party. Environmental Matters Tyco is involved in various stages of investigation and cleanup related to environmental remediation matters at a number of sites. The ultimate cost of site cleanup is difficult to predict given the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations and alternative cleanup methods. As of March 29, 2013, Tyco concluded that it was probable that it would incur remedial costs in the range of approximately $107 million to $186 million. As of March 29, 2013, Tyco concluded that the best estimate within this range is approximately $138 million, of which $89 million is included in Accrued and other current liabilities and $49 million is included in Other liabilities in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. The majority of the liabilities described above relate to ongoing remediation efforts at a facility in the Company's Global Products segment located in Marinette, Wisconsin, which the Company acquired in 1990 in connection with its acquisition of, among other things, the Ansul product line. Prior to Tyco's acquisition, Ansul manufactured arsenic-based agricultural herbicides at the Marinette facility, which resulted in significant arsenic contamination of soil and groundwater on the Marinette site and in parts of the adjoining Menominee River. Ansul has been engaged in ongoing remediation efforts at the Marinette site since 1990, and in February 2009 entered into an Administrative Consent Order (the "Consent Order") with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address the presence of arsenic at the Marinette site. Under this agreement, Ansul's principal obligations are to contain the arsenic contamination on the site, pump and treat on-site groundwater, dredge, treat and properly dispose of contaminated sediments in the adjoining river areas, and monitor contamination levels on an ongoing basis. Activities completed under the Consent Order since 2009 include the installation of a subsurface barrier wall around the facility to contain contaminated groundwater, the installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system and the dredging and offsite disposal of treated river sediment. As a result of treatability studies concluded during the second quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company became aware that additional river sediment beyond what was originally planned would require treatment by November 1, 2013, the deadline imposed under the Consent Order for river sediment remediation. This has caused the Company to increase its agreed upon remedial activities through the fall of 2013 in order to achieve compliance with the Consent Order. As a result of the increased level of remediation required, the Company recorded a charge of approximately $94 million during the quarter ended March 29, 2013 which it recorded in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. As of March 29, 2013, the Company concluded that it was probable that it would incur remediation and monitoring costs related to the Marinette facility in the range of approximately $100 million to $175 million. The Company's best estimate within that range is approximately $131 million, of which $87 million is included in Accrued and other current liabilities and $44 million is included in Other liabilities in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. Since fiscal 2009, the year in which the Company received the Consent Order, the Company has incurred environmental remediation costs net of insurance recoveries of $132 million, of which $16 million were incurred during fiscal 2012. Although the Company has recorded its best estimate of the costs that it will incur to remediate and monitor the arsenic contamination at the Marinette facility, it is possible that technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies or other factors could change the Company's expectations with respect to future charges and cash outlays, and such changes could be material to the Company's future results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Asbestos Matters The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous other companies are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with asbestos containing components manufactured by third parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. While the Company has observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma related claims, a large percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. The Company's historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of litigated suits have been dismissed, the Company cannot predict the extent to which it will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. In addition, the Company continues to assess its strategy for resolving asbestos claims. Due to the number of claims and limited amount of assets held by Yarway Corporation ("Yarway"), one of the Company's indirect subsidiaries, on April 22, 2013 Yarway filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. As a result of this filing, all asbestos claims against Yarway have been stayed pending confirmation of a plan of reorganization by the Bankruptcy Court. Yarway's goal is to negotiate, obtain approval of, and consummate a plan of reorganization that establishes an appropriately funded trust to provide for the fair and equitable payment of legitimate current and future Yarway asbestos claims, accompanied by appropriate injunctive relief permanently protecting Yarway and certain other protected parties from any further asbestos claims arising from products manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Yarway. Although the terms of Yarway's plan of reorganization are unknown at this time, the Company does not expect them to have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. As of March 29, 2013, the Company has determined that there were approximately 5,800 claims pending against it, its subsidiaries or entities for which the Company has assumed responsibility in connection with acquisitions and divestitures. This amount reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable claims made against such entities and includes adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect defendants, are duplicative of other actions or for which the Company is indemnified. Annually, during the Company's third quarter, the Company performs an analysis with the assistance of outside counsel and other experts to update its estimated asbestos related assets and liabilities. In addition, on a quarterly basis, the Company re-evaluates the assumptions used to perform the annual analysis and records an expense as necessary to reflect changes in its estimated liability and related insurance asset. The Company's estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is based on the Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed. The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. The Company considers various trends and developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be made in the future during a defined period of time (the look-forward period). As part of the Company's annual valuation process in the third quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company determined that a look-back period of three years was more appropriate than a five year period because the Company has experienced a higher and more consistent level of claims activity and settlement costs in the past three years. As a result, the Company believes a three year look-back period is more representative of future claim and settlement activity than the five year period it previously used. The Company also revised its look-forward period from seven years to fifteen years. The Company's decision to revise its look- forward period was primarily based on improvements in the consistency of observable data and the Company's more extensive experience with asbestos claims since the look-forward period was originally established in 2005. The revisions to the Company's look-forward and look-back periods do not apply to claims made against Yarway. Excluding these claims, the Company believes it can make a more reliable estimate of pending and future claims beyond seven years. The Company believes valuation of pending claims and future claims to be filed over the next fifteen years produces a reasonable estimate of its asbestos liability, which it records in the unaudited consolidated financial statements on an undiscounted basis. The Company's estimate of asbestos related insurance recoveries represents estimated amounts due to the Company for previously paid and settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating to its estimated liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount of insurance recoverable, the Company considers a number of factors, including available insurance, allocation methodologies, and the solvency and creditworthiness of insurers. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company reached an agreement with one of its primary insurance carriers for asbestos related claims. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed with the insurance carrier to accept a lump sum cash payment of $97 million in respect of certain policies, and has reached a coverage-in-place agreement with the insurance carrier with respect to certain claims. Upon receipt of the payments from the insurance carrier in the first quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company terminated a cost-sharing agreement that it had entered into with an entity that it had acquired a business from several decades ago and as a result, has access to all of the insurance policies and is responsible for all liabilities arising from asbestos claims made against the subsidiary that was acquired. As of March 29, 2013, the Company's estimated net liability of $203 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $355 million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $152 million. The Company believes that its asbestos related liabilities and insurance related assets as of March 29, 2013 are appropriate. Similarly, as of September 28, 2012, the Company's estimated net liability of $155 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $401 million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $246 million. The net liabilities reflected in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet represent the Company's best estimates of probable losses for the look-forward periods described above. It is reasonably possible that losses will be incurred for claims made subsequent to such look-forward periods. However, due to the inherent uncertainty and lack of reliable trend data in predicting losses beyond 2027, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of losses beyond such date. With respect to claims made against Yarway, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate losses beyond what it has accrued because it is uncertain what the impact of Yarway's reorganization plan under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code will be on the Company. However, the Company does not expect the impact to be materially adverse to its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption will impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results. Compliance Matters As previously reported in the Company's periodic filings, in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2012, the Company settled with the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the SEC charges related to alleged improper payments made by the Company's subsidiaries and agents in recent years, and agreed to pay approximately $26 million in fines, disgorgement and prejudgment interest to the DOJ and SEC, which the Company had previously reserved in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011. The Company paid the DOJ approximately $13 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2013 and expects to make the payment of approximately $13 million to the SEC in the second half of fiscal 2013. Covidien and TE Connectivity agreed, in connection with the 2007 Separation, to cooperate with the Company in its responses regarding these matters, and agreed that liabilities primarily related to the former Healthcare and Electronics businesses of the Company would be assigned to Covidien and TE Connectivity, respectively. As a result, Covidien and TE Connectivity have agreed to contribute approximately $5 million and immaterial amounts, respectively, toward the aforementioned $26 million. Tax Litigation Tyco and its subsidiaries' income tax returns are examined periodically by various tax authorities. In connection with these examinations, tax authorities, including the IRS, have raised issues and proposed tax adjustments, in particular with respect to years preceding the 2007 Separation. The issues and proposed adjustments related to such years are generally subject to the sharing provisions of a tax sharing agreement entered in 2007 with Covidien and TE Connectivity (the "2007 Tax Sharing Agreement") under which Tyco, Covidien and TE Connectivity share 27%, 42% and 31%, respectively, of shared income tax liabilities that arise from adjustments made by tax authorities to Tyco's, Covidien's and TE Connectivity's U.S. and certain non-U.S. income tax returns. The costs and expenses associated with the management of these shared tax liabilities are generally shared equally among the parties. Tyco is reviewing and contesting certain tax adjustments proposed by tax authorities. With respect to adjustments raised by the IRS, although the Company has resolved a substantial number of these adjustments, a few significant items are expected to remain open with respect to the audit of the 1997 through 2004 years. As of the date hereof, it is unlikely that Tyco will be able to resolve all the open items, which primarily involve the treatment of certain intercompany debt transactions during the period, through the IRS appeals process. As a result, Tyco expects to litigate these matters once it receives the requisite statutory notices from the IRS, which is expected to occur during fiscal 2013. The Company has assessed its obligations under the 2007 Tax Sharing Agreement and determined that its recorded liability is sufficient to cover the indemnifications made by the Company under such agreement. However, the ultimate resolution of these matters is uncertain and could result in a material adverse impact to the Company's financial position, results of operations, cash flows or the effective tax rate in future reporting periods. See Note 6 for additional information related to income tax matters. Other Matters In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to claims and suits, including from time to time, contractual disputes and product and general liability claims, incidental to present and former operations, acquisitions and dispositions. With respect to many of these claims, the Company either self-insures or maintains insurance through third-parties, with varying deductibles. While the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that the resolution of any such proceedings, whether the underlying claims are covered by insurance or not, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows beyond amounts recorded for such matters.

11. Commitments and Contingencies

Legacy Matters Related to Former Management

The Company is a party to several lawsuits involving disputes with former management, including its former chief executive officer, Mr. L. Dennis Kozlowski, its former chief financial officer, Mr. Mark Swartz and a former director, Mr. Frank Walsh Jr. The Company has filed civil complaints against Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz for breach of fiduciary duty and other wrongful conduct relating to alleged abuses of the Company's Key Employee Loan Program and relocation program, unauthorized bonuses, unauthorized payments, self dealing transactions and other improper conduct. In connection with Tyco's affirmative actions against Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz, Mr. Kozlowski, through counterclaims, and Mr. Swartz, through a separate lawsuit, are seeking an aggregate of approximately $140 million allegedly due in connection with their compensation and retention arrangements and under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Mr. Walsh sought indemnification for legal and other expenses incurred by him in connection with the Company's affirmative action against him for breaches of fiduciary duties.

With respect to Mr. Kozlowski, on December 1, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of several of the Company's affirmative claims against him before trial, while dismissing all of Mr. Kozlowski's counterclaims for pay and benefits after 1995. Prior to the commencement of trial scheduled for August 2012, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter, with Mr. Kozlowski agreeing to release the Company from any claims to monetary amounts related to compensation, retention or other arrangements alleged to have existed between him and the Company. Although the parties have reached an agreement in principle, until the settlement agreement is signed, the Company will continue to maintain the amounts recorded in its Consolidated Balance Sheet, which reflect a net liability of approximately $91 million, for the amounts allegedly due under his compensation and retention arrangements and under ERISA.

With respect to Mr. Swartz, on March 3, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Company's motion for summary judgment as to liability for its affirmative actions and further ruled that issues related to damages would need to be resolved at trial. During the second quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company reversed a $50 million liability related to Mr. Swartz's pay and benefits due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, which was recorded in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. On May 15, 2012, Mr. Swartz filed a lawsuit against Tyco in New York state court claiming entitlement to monies under ERISA. The Company removed the case to the U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York and filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Swartz's claims for multiple reasons, including that the statute of limitations had expired, at the latest, during the second quarter of fiscal 2012. A trial to determine the Company's damages from Mr. Swartz's breaches of fiduciary duty concluded on October 17, 2012. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court ruled that the Company was entitled to recover all monies earned by Mr. Swartz in connection with his employment by Tyco between September 1, 1995 and June 1, 2002. The Company filed a motion requesting the entry of monetary sum certain judgment in conformity with the Court's ruling regarding the time period of disgorgement. The motion also requested interest related to the monies Mr. Swartz was found to have unlawfully taken from the Company. In March 2013, the Court entered an order awarding the Company's request for interest. In connection with Mr. Swartz's affirmative claims against the Company, the Court dismissed all of Mr. Swartz's claims except one claim in which Mr. Swartz contends he is entitled to reimbursement from the Company for taxes he paid in connection with his 2002 Separation Agreement. The Court has not opined on the merits of this claim, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this claim.

With respect to Mr. Walsh, in June 2002, the Company filed a civil complaint against him for breach of fiduciary duty, inducing breaches of fiduciary duty and related wrongful conduct involving a $20 million payment by Tyco, $10 million of which was paid to Mr. Walsh with the balance paid to a charity of which Mr. Walsh is trustee. The payment was purportedly made for Mr. Walsh's assistance in arranging the Company's acquisition of The CIT Group, Inc. On December 17, 2002, Mr. Walsh pleaded guilty to a felony violation of New York law in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, (New York County) and settled a civil action for violation of federal securities laws brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Both the felony charge and the civil action were brought against Mr. Walsh based on such payment. The felony charge accused Mr. Walsh of intentionally concealing information concerning the payment from Tyco's directors and shareholders while engaged in the sale of Tyco securities in the State of New York. The SEC action alleged that Mr. Walsh knew that the registration statement covering the sale of Tyco securities as part of the CIT Group acquisition contained a material misrepresentation concerning fees payable in connection with the acquisition. Pursuant to the plea and settlement, Mr. Walsh paid $20 million in restitution to Tyco on December 17, 2002. In October 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Company's affirmative claims for recovery of damages against Mr. Walsh. In January 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling that Tyco's Board of Directors could ratify breaches of fiduciary duties owed by Mr. Walsh to Tyco's shareholders, and remanded the case to the District Court to resolve certain issues relating to consequential damages. On June 20, 2012, the District Court ruled in Tyco's favor and entered a judgment against Mr. Walsh. Separately, Mr. Walsh filed a New York state court claim against the Company asserting his entitlement to indemnification. In March 2013, Mr. Walsh and the Company entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims they had against each other related to these lawsuits with no payments made by either party.

Environmental Matters

Tyco is involved in various stages of investigation and cleanup related to environmental remediation matters at a number of sites. The ultimate cost of site cleanup is difficult to predict given the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations and alternative cleanup methods. As of March 29, 2013, Tyco concluded that it was probable that it would incur remedial costs in the range of approximately $107 million to $186 million. As of March 29, 2013, Tyco concluded that the best estimate within this range is approximately $138 million, of which $89 million is included in Accrued and other current liabilities and $49 million is included in Other liabilities in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The majority of the liabilities described above relate to ongoing remediation efforts at a facility in the Company's Global Products segment located in Marinette, Wisconsin, which the Company acquired in 1990 in connection with its acquisition of, among other things, the Ansul product line. Prior to Tyco's acquisition, Ansul manufactured arsenic-based agricultural herbicides at the Marinette facility, which resulted in significant arsenic contamination of soil and groundwater on the Marinette site and in parts of the adjoining Menominee River. Ansul has been engaged in ongoing remediation efforts at the Marinette site since 1990, and in February 2009 entered into an Administrative Consent Order (the "Consent Order") with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address the presence of arsenic at the Marinette site. Under this agreement, Ansul's principal obligations are to contain the arsenic contamination on the site, pump and treat on-site groundwater, dredge, treat and properly dispose of contaminated sediments in the adjoining river areas, and monitor contamination levels on an ongoing basis. Activities completed under the Consent Order since 2009 include the installation of a subsurface barrier wall around the facility to contain contaminated groundwater, the installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system and the dredging and offsite disposal of treated river sediment. As a result of treatability studies concluded during the second quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company became aware that additional river sediment beyond what was originally planned would require treatment by November 1, 2013, the deadline imposed under the Consent Order for river sediment remediation. This has caused the Company to increase its agreed upon remedial activities through the fall of 2013 in order to achieve compliance with the Consent Order. As a result of the increased level of remediation required, the Company recorded a charge of approximately $94 million during the quarter ended March 29, 2013 which it recorded in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. As of March 29, 2013, the Company concluded that it was probable that it would incur remediation and monitoring costs related to the Marinette facility in the range of approximately $100 million to $175 million. The Company's best estimate within that range is approximately $131 million, of which $87 million is included in Accrued and other current liabilities and $44 million is included in Other liabilities in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. Since fiscal 2009, the year in which the Company received the Consent Order, the Company has incurred environmental remediation costs net of insurance recoveries of $132 million, of which $16 million were incurred during fiscal 2012. Although the Company has recorded its best estimate of the costs that it will incur to remediate and monitor the arsenic contamination at the Marinette facility, it is possible that technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies or other factors could change the Company's expectations with respect to future charges and cash outlays, and such changes could be material to the Company's future results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Asbestos Matters

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous other companies are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with asbestos containing components manufactured by third parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. While the Company has observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma related claims, a large percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. The Company's historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of litigated suits have been dismissed, the Company cannot predict the extent to which it will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. In addition, the Company continues to assess its strategy for resolving asbestos claims. Due to the number of claims and limited amount of assets held by Yarway Corporation ("Yarway"), one of the Company's indirect subsidiaries, on April 22, 2013 Yarway filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. As a result of this filing, all asbestos claims against Yarway have been stayed pending confirmation of a plan of reorganization by the Bankruptcy Court. Yarway's goal is to negotiate, obtain approval of, and consummate a plan of reorganization that establishes an appropriately funded trust to provide for the fair and equitable payment of legitimate current and future Yarway asbestos claims, accompanied by appropriate injunctive relief permanently protecting Yarway and certain other protected parties from any further asbestos claims arising from products manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Yarway. Although the terms of Yarway's plan of reorganization are unknown at this time, the Company does not expect them to have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

As of March 29, 2013, the Company has determined that there were approximately 5,800 claims pending against it, its subsidiaries or entities for which the Company has assumed responsibility in connection with acquisitions and divestitures. This amount reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable claims made against such entities and includes adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect defendants, are duplicative of other actions or for which the Company is indemnified.

Annually, during the Company's third quarter, the Company performs an analysis with the assistance of outside counsel and other experts to update its estimated asbestos related assets and liabilities. In addition, on a quarterly basis, the Company re-evaluates the assumptions used to perform the annual analysis and records an expense as necessary to reflect changes in its estimated liability and related insurance asset. The Company's estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is based on the Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed. The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. The Company considers various trends and developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be made in the future during a defined period of time (the look-forward period). As part of the Company's annual valuation process in the third quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company determined that a look-back period of three years was more appropriate than a five year period because the Company has experienced a higher and more consistent level of claims activity and settlement costs in the past three years. As a result, the Company believes a three year look-back period is more representative of future claim and settlement activity than the five year period it previously used. The Company also revised its look-forward period from seven years to fifteen years. The Company's decision to revise its look- forward period was primarily based on improvements in the consistency of observable data and the Company's more extensive experience with asbestos claims since the look-forward period was originally established in 2005. The revisions to the Company's look-forward and look-back periods do not apply to claims made against Yarway. Excluding these claims, the Company believes it can make a more reliable estimate of pending and future claims beyond seven years. The Company believes valuation of pending claims and future claims to be filed over the next fifteen years produces a reasonable estimate of its asbestos liability, which it records in the unaudited consolidated financial statements on an undiscounted basis.

The Company's estimate of asbestos related insurance recoveries represents estimated amounts due to the Company for previously paid and settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating to its estimated liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount of insurance recoverable, the Company considers a number of factors, including available insurance, allocation methodologies, and the solvency and creditworthiness of insurers. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company reached an agreement with one of its primary insurance carriers for asbestos related claims. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed with the insurance carrier to accept a lump sum cash payment of $97 million in respect of certain policies, and has reached a coverage-in-place agreement with the insurance carrier with respect to certain claims. Upon receipt of the payments from the insurance carrier in the first quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company terminated a cost-sharing agreement that it had entered into with an entity that it had acquired a business from several decades ago and as a result, has access to all of the insurance policies and is responsible for all liabilities arising from asbestos claims made against the subsidiary that was acquired.

As of March 29, 2013, the Company's estimated net liability of $203 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $355 million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $152 million. The Company believes that its asbestos related liabilities and insurance related assets as of March 29, 2013 are appropriate. Similarly, as of September 28, 2012, the Company's estimated net liability of $155 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $401 million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $246 million.

The net liabilities reflected in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet represent the Company's best estimates of probable losses for the look-forward periods described above. It is reasonably possible that losses will be incurred for claims made subsequent to such look-forward periods. However, due to the inherent uncertainty and lack of reliable trend data in predicting losses beyond 2027, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of losses beyond such date. With respect to claims made against Yarway, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate losses beyond what it has accrued because it is uncertain what the impact of Yarway's reorganization plan under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code will be on the Company. However, the Company does not expect the impact to be materially adverse to its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption will impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results.

Compliance Matters

As previously reported in the Company's periodic filings, in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2012, the Company settled with the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the SEC charges related to alleged improper payments made by the Company's subsidiaries and agents in recent years, and agreed to pay approximately $26 million in fines, disgorgement and prejudgment interest to the DOJ and SEC, which the Company had previously reserved in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011. The Company paid the DOJ approximately $13 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2013 and expects to make the payment of approximately $13 million to the SEC in the second half of fiscal 2013.

Covidien and TE Connectivity agreed, in connection with the 2007 Separation, to cooperate with the Company in its responses regarding these matters, and agreed that liabilities primarily related to the former Healthcare and Electronics businesses of the Company would be assigned to Covidien and TE Connectivity, respectively. As a result, Covidien and TE Connectivity have agreed to contribute approximately $5 million and immaterial amounts, respectively, toward the aforementioned $26 million.

Tax Litigation

Tyco and its subsidiaries' income tax returns are examined periodically by various tax authorities. In connection with these examinations, tax authorities, including the IRS, have raised issues and proposed tax adjustments, in particular with respect to years preceding the 2007 Separation. The issues and proposed adjustments related to such years are generally subject to the sharing provisions of a tax sharing agreement entered in 2007 with Covidien and TE Connectivity (the "2007 Tax Sharing Agreement") under which Tyco, Covidien and TE Connectivity share 27%, 42% and 31%, respectively, of shared income tax liabilities that arise from adjustments made by tax authorities to Tyco's, Covidien's and TE Connectivity's U.S. and certain non-U.S. income tax returns. The costs and expenses associated with the management of these shared tax liabilities are generally shared equally among the parties. Tyco is reviewing and contesting certain tax adjustments proposed by tax authorities. With respect to adjustments raised by the IRS, although the Company has resolved a substantial number of these adjustments, a few significant items are expected to remain open with respect to the audit of the 1997 through 2004 years. As of the date hereof, it is unlikely that Tyco will be able to resolve all the open items, which primarily involve the treatment of certain intercompany debt transactions during the period, through the IRS appeals process. As a result, Tyco expects to litigate these matters once it receives the requisite statutory notices from the IRS, which is expected to occur during fiscal 2013. The Company has assessed its obligations under the 2007 Tax Sharing Agreement and determined that its recorded liability is sufficient to cover the indemnifications made by the Company under such agreement. However, the ultimate resolution of these matters is uncertain and could result in a material adverse impact to the Company's financial position, results of operations, cash flows or the effective tax rate in future reporting periods. See Note 6 for additional information related to income tax matters.

Other Matters

In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to claims and suits, including from time to time, contractual disputes and product and general liability claims, incidental to present and former operations, acquisitions and dispositions. With respect to many of these claims, the Company either self-insures or maintains insurance through third-parties, with varying deductibles. While the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that the resolution of any such proceedings, whether the underlying claims are covered by insurance or not, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows beyond amounts recorded for such matters.