XML 44 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Contingencies and Environmental Liabilities | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies and Environmental Liabilities | Contingencies and Environmental Liabilities The Company is involved in various claims and legal proceedings of a nature considered normal to its business, including product liability, intellectual property, and commercial litigation, as well as certain additional matters including governmental and environmental matters. In the opinion of the Company, it is unlikely that the resolution of these matters will be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Given the nature of the litigation discussed below and the complexities involved in these matters, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for such matters until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) what claims, if any, will survive dispositive motion practice, (ii) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly when damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (iii) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (iv) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation and (v) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation. The Company records accruals for contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These accruals are adjusted periodically as assessments change or additional information becomes available. For product liability claims, a portion of the overall accrual is actuarially determined and considers such factors as past experience, number of claims reported and estimates of claims incurred but not yet reported. Individually significant contingent losses are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. The Company’s decision to obtain insurance coverage is dependent on market conditions, including cost and availability, existing at the time such decisions are made. The Company has evaluated its risks and has determined that the cost of obtaining product liability insurance outweighs the likely benefits of the coverage that is available and, as such, has no insurance for most product liabilities effective August 1, 2004. Product Liability Litigation Fosamax As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax (Fosamax Litigation). As of December 31, 2018, approximately 3,900 cases have been filed and either are pending or conditionally dismissed (as noted below) against Merck in either federal or state court. Plaintiffs in the vast majority of these cases generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries (Femur Fractures) in association with the use of Fosamax. In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. All federal cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey (Femur Fracture MDL). In the only bellwether case tried to date in the Femur Fracture MDL, Glynn v. Merck, the jury returned a verdict in Merck’s favor. In addition, in June 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court granted Merck’s motion for judgment as a matter of law in the Glynn case and held that the plaintiff’s failure to warn claim was preempted by federal law. In August 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court entered an order requiring plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that took place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed based on the court’s preemption decision in the Glynn case. Pursuant to the show cause order, in March 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL court dismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on preemption grounds. Plaintiffs in approximately 515 of those cases appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit). In March 2017, the Third Circuit issued a decision reversing the Femur Fracture MDL court’s preemption ruling and remanding the appealed cases back to the Femur Fracture MDL court. Merck filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2017, seeking review of the Third Circuit’s decision. In December 2017, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief in the case expressing the views of the United States, and in May 2018, the Solicitor General submitted a brief stating that the Third Circuit’s decision was wrongly decided and recommended that the Supreme Court grant Merck’s cert petition. The Supreme Court granted Merck’s petition in June 2018, and an oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on January 7, 2019. The final decision on the Femur Fracture MDL court’s preemption ruling is now pending before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2018, nine cases were actively pending in the Femur Fracture MDL, and approximately 1,055 cases have either been dismissed without prejudice or administratively closed pending final resolution by the Supreme Court of the appeal of the Femur Fracture MDL court’s preemption order. As of December 31, 2018, approximately 2,555 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and are pending before Judge James Hyland in Middlesex County. The parties selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Two additional groups of 50 cases each to be reviewed through fact discovery were selected in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively. A further group of 25 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery was selected by Merck in July 2015, and Merck has continued to select additional cases to be reviewed through fact discovery from 2016 to the present. As of December 31, 2018, approximately 275 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed and are pending in California state court. All of the Femur Fracture cases filed in California state court have been coordinated before a single judge in Orange County, California. In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10 discovery pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and subsequently scheduled the Galper v. Merck case, which plaintiffs selected, as the first trial. The Galper trial began in February 2015 and the jury returned a verdict in Merck’s favor in April 2015, and plaintiff appealed that verdict to the California appellate court. In April 2017, the California appellate court issued a decision affirming the lower court’s judgment in favor of Merck. The next Femur Fracture trial in California that was scheduled to begin in April 2016 was stayed at plaintiffs’ request and a new trial date has not been set. Additionally, there are four Femur Fracture cases pending in other state courts. Discovery is ongoing in the Femur Fracture MDL and in state courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. Januvia/Janumet As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Januvia and/or Janumet. As of December 31, 2018, Merck is aware of approximately 1,290 product users alleging that Januvia and/or Janumet caused the development of pancreatic cancer and other injuries. Most claims have been filed in multidistrict litigation before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (MDL). Outside of the MDL, the majority of claims have been filed in coordinated proceedings before the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (California State Court). In November 2015, the MDL and California State Court-in separate opinions-granted summary judgment to defendants on grounds of federal preemption. Plaintiffs appealed in both forums. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for further discovery, which is ongoing. In November 2018, the California state appellate court reversed and remanded on similar grounds. As of December 31, 2018, eight product users have claims pending against Merck in state courts other than California, including Illinois. In June 2017, the Illinois trial court denied Merck’s motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption. Merck appealed, and the Illinois appellate court affirmed in December 2018. Merck intends to appeal that ruling. In addition to the claims noted above, the Company has agreed to toll the statute of limitations for approximately 50 additional claims. The Company intends to continue defending against these lawsuits. Vioxx As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Attorney General of Utah alleging that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx. The lawsuit is pending in Utah state court. Utah seeks damages and penalties under the Utah False Claims Act. A bench trial in this matter is currently scheduled for July 2019. Propecia/Proscar As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Propecia and/or Proscar. The lawsuits were filed in various federal courts and in state court in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits were then consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation before Judge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New York. The matters pending in state court in New Jersey were consolidated before Judge Hyland in Middlesex County (NJ Coordinated Proceedings). As previously disclosed, on April 9, 2018, Merck and the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the Propecia MDL and the Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel in the NJ Coordinated Proceedings entered into an agreement to resolve the above mentioned Propecia/Proscar lawsuits for an aggregate amount of $4.3 million. The settlement was subject to certain contingencies, including 95% plaintiff participation and a per plaintiff clawback if the participation rate was less than 100%. The contingencies were satisfied and the settlement agreement was finalized. After the settlement, fewer than 25 cases remain pending in the United States. The Company intends to defend against any remaining unsettled lawsuits. Governmental Proceedings As previously disclosed, the Company has learned that the Prosecution Office of Milan, Italy is investigating interactions between the Company’s Italian subsidiary, certain employees of the subsidiary and certain Italian health care providers. The Company understands that this is part of a larger investigation involving engagements between various health care companies and those health care providers. The Company is cooperating with the investigation. As previously disclosed, the United Kingdom (UK) Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued a Statement of Objections against the Company and MSD Sharp & Dohme Limited (MSD UK) in May 2017. In the Statement of Objections, the CMA alleges that MSD UK abused a dominant position through a discount program for Remicade over the period from March 2015 to February 2016. The Company and MSD UK are contesting the CMA’s allegations. As previously disclosed, the Company has received an investigative subpoena from the California Insurance Commissioner’s Fraud Bureau (Bureau) seeking information from January 1, 2007 to the present related to the pricing and promotion of Cubicin. The Bureau is investigating whether Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which the Company acquired in 2015, unlawfully induced the presentation of false claims for Cubicin to private insurers under the California Insurance Code False Claims Act. The Company is cooperating with the investigation. As previously disclosed, the Company’s subsidiaries in China have received and may continue to receive inquiries regarding their operations from various Chinese governmental agencies. Some of these inquiries may be related to matters involving other multinational pharmaceutical companies, as well as Chinese entities doing business with such companies. The Company’s policy is to cooperate with these authorities and to provide responses as appropriate. As previously disclosed, from time to time, the Company receives inquiries and is the subject of preliminary investigation activities from competition and other governmental authorities in markets outside the United States. These authorities may include regulators, administrative authorities, and law enforcement and other similar officials, and these preliminary investigation activities may include site visits, formal or informal requests or demands for documents or materials, inquiries or interviews and similar matters. Certain of these preliminary inquiries or activities may lead to the commencement of formal proceedings. Should those proceedings be determined adversely to the Company, monetary fines and/or remedial undertakings may be required. Commercial and Other Litigation Zetia Antitrust Litigation As previously disclosed, Merck, MSD, Schering Corporation and MSP Singapore Company LLC (collectively, the Merck Defendants) are defendants in putative class action and opt-out lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Zetia alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action. The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the Eastern District of Virginia. On December 6, 2018, the court denied the Merck Defendants’ motions to dismiss or stay the direct purchaser putative class actions pending bilateral arbitration. On February 6, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation recommending that the district judge grant in part and deny in part defendants’ motions to dismiss on non-arbitration issues. On February 20, 2019, defendants and retailer opt-out plaintiffs filed objections to the report and recommendation. After responses are filed, the parties will await a decision from the district judge. Rotavirus Vaccines Antitrust Litigation As previously disclosed, MSD is a defendant in putative class action lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct purchasers of RotaTeq, alleging violations of federal antitrust laws. The cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 23, 2019, the court denied MSD’s motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On February 19, 2019, MSD appealed the court’s order on arbitration to the Third Circuit, and on February 22, 2019, the court granted MSD’s motion to vacate existing deadlines in the district court in light of the appeal. Sales Force Litigation As previously disclosed, in May 2013, Ms. Kelli Smith filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of herself and a putative class of female sales representatives and a putative sub-class of female sales representatives with children, claiming (a) discriminatory policies and practices in selection, promotion and advancement, (b) disparate pay, (c) differential treatment, (d) hostile work environment and (e) retaliation under federal and state discrimination laws. In January 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding four additional named plaintiffs. In October 2014, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss or strike the class claims as premature. In September 2015, plaintiffs filed additional motions, including a motion for conditional certification under the Equal Pay Act; a motion to amend the pleadings seeking to add ERISA and constructive discharge claims and a Company subsidiary as a named defendant; and a motion for equitable relief. Merck filed papers in opposition to the motions. In April 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification but denied plaintiffs’ motions to extend the liability period for their Equal Pay Act claims back to June 2009. In April 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted plaintiffs’ request to amend the complaint to add the following: (i) a Company subsidiary as a corporate defendant; (ii) an ERISA claim and (iii) an individual constructive discharge claim for one of the named plaintiffs. Approximately 700 individuals opted-in to this action; the opt-in period has closed. In August 2017, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. This motion sought to certify a Title VII pay discrimination class and also sought final collective action certification of plaintiffs’ Equal Pay Act claim. On October 1, 2018, the parties entered into an agreement to fully resolve the Smith sales force litigation. As part of the settlement and in exchange for a full and general release of all individual and class claims, the Company agreed to pay $8.5 million. The settlement agreement, which contains an “opt-out” clause allowing Merck to pull out of the agreement if 30 or more individuals opt out, will be subject to court approval. On December 18, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion with the court seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. Qui Tam Litigation As previously disclosed, in June 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unsealed a complaint that has been filed against the Company under the federal False Claims Act by two former employees alleging, among other things, that the Company defrauded the U.S. government by falsifying data in connection with a clinical study conducted on the mumps component of the Company’s M-M-R II vaccine. The complaint alleges the fraud took place between 1999 and 2001. The U.S. government had the right to participate in and take over the prosecution of this lawsuit, but notified the court that it declined to exercise that right. The two former employees are pursuing the lawsuit without the involvement of the U.S. government. In addition, as previously disclosed, two putative class action lawsuits on behalf of direct purchasers of the M‑M‑R II vaccine, which charge that the Company misrepresented the efficacy of the M-M-R II vaccine in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state consumer protection laws, are pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In September 2014, the court denied Merck’s motion to dismiss the False Claims Act suit and granted in part and denied in part its motion to dismiss the then-pending antitrust suit. As a result, both the False Claims Act suit and the antitrust suits have proceeded into discovery, which is ongoing. The Company continues to defend against these lawsuits. Merck KGaA Litigation As previously disclosed, in January 2016, to protect its long-established brand rights in the United States, the Company filed a lawsuit against Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (KGaA), historically operating as the EMD Group in the United States, alleging it improperly uses the name “Merck” in the United States. KGaA has filed suit against the Company in France, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Mexico, India, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and China alleging, among other things, unfair competition, trademark infringement and/or corporate name infringement. In the UK, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and India, KGaA also alleges breach of the parties’ coexistence agreement. In December 2015, the Paris Court of First Instance issued a judgment finding that certain activities by the Company directed towards France did not constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition while other activities were found to infringe and constitute unfair competition. The Company and KGaA appealed the decision, and the appeal was heard in May 2017. In June 2017, the French appeals court held that certain of the activities by the Company directed to France constituted unfair competition or trademark infringement and, in December 2017, the Company decided not to pursue any further appeal. In January 2016, the UK High Court issued a judgment finding that the Company had breached the co-existence agreement and infringed KGaA’s trademark rights as a result of certain activities directed towards the UK based on use of the word MERCK on promotional and information activity. As noted in the UK decision, this finding was not based on the Company’s use of the sign MERCK in connection with the sale of products or any material pharmaceutical business transacted in the UK. The Company and KGaA have both appealed this decision, and the appeal was heard in June 2017. In November 2017, the UK Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on the co-existence agreement and remitted for re-hearing issues of trademark infringement, the scope of KGaA’s UK trademarks for pharmaceutical products, and the relief to which KGaA would be entitled. The re-hearing was held, and no decision has been handed down. In November 2018, the District Court in Hamburg, Germany dismissed all of KGaA’s claims concerning KGaA’s EU trademark with respect to the territory of the EU. In accordance with the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU delivered in October 2017, the District Court in Hamburg further held that it had no jurisdiction over the claim by KGaA insofar as the claim related to the territory of the UK. KGaA has appealed this decision. Further decisions from the District Court in Hamburg, Germany, in connection with claims concerning KGaA’s EU trademark, German trademark and trade name rights as well as unfair competition law with respect to the territory of Germany are expected on February 28, 2019. In January 2019, the Mexican Trademark Office issued a decision on KGaA’s action. The court found no trademark infringement by the Company and dismissed all of KGaA’s claims for trademark infringement. The court ruled against the Company on KGaA’s unfair competition claim. Both KGaA and the Company have appealed this decision. Patent Litigation From time to time, generic manufacturers of pharmaceutical products file abbreviated NDAs with the FDA seeking to market generic forms of the Company’s products prior to the expiration of relevant patents owned by the Company. To protect its patent rights, the Company may file patent infringement lawsuits against such generic companies. Similar lawsuits defending the Company’s patent rights may exist in other countries. The Company intends to vigorously defend its patents, which it believes are valid, against infringement by companies attempting to market products prior to the expiration of such patents. As with any litigation, there can be no assurance of the outcomes, which, if adverse, could result in significantly shortened periods of exclusivity for these products and, with respect to products acquired through acquisitions, potentially significant intangible asset impairment charges. Inegy — The patents protecting Inegy in Europe have expired but supplemental protection certificates (SPCs) have been granted to the Company in many European countries that will expire in April 2019. There are multiple challenges to the SPCs related to Inegy throughout Europe and generic products have been launched in Austria, France, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Germany, and the Netherlands. The Company has filed for preliminary injunctions in many countries that are still pending decision. Preliminary injunctions are presently in force in Austria, Czech Republic, Greece, Norway, Portugal, and Slovakia. Preliminary injunctions have been denied or revoked in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Spain. The Company is appealing those decisions. In France and Belgium, preliminary injunctions were granted against some companies and denied against others, and appeals are pending. The SPC was held valid in merits proceedings in Portugal and France. The Company has filed and will continue to file actions for patent infringement seeking damages against those companies that launch generic products before April 2019. Noxafil — In August 2015, the Company filed a lawsuit against Actavis Laboratories Fl, Inc. (Actavis) in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Noxafil. In October 2017, the district court held the patent valid and infringed. Actavis appealed this decision. While the appeal was pending, the parties reached a settlement, subject to certain terms of the agreement being met, whereby Actavis can launch its generic version prior to expiry of the patent and pediatric exclusivity under certain conditions. In March 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Roxane) in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Noxafil. In November 2017, the parties reached a settlement whereby Roxane can launch its generic version prior to expiry of the patent under certain conditions. In February 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against Par Sterile Products LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. (collectively, Par) in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Noxafil injection. In October 2016, the parties reached a settlement whereby Par can launch its generic version in January 2023, or earlier under certain conditions. In February 2018, the Company filed a lawsuit against Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (Fresenius) in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Noxafil. In November 2018, the Company reached a settlement with Fresenius, whereby Fresenius can launch its generic version of the intravenous product prior to expiry of the patent under certain conditions. In March 2018, the Company filed a lawsuit against Mylan Laboratories Limited in the United States in respect of that company’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Noxafil. Nasonex — Nasonex lost market exclusivity in the United States in 2016. Prior to that, in April 2015, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex) in respect of Apotex’s marketed product that the Company believed was infringing. In January 2018, the Company and Apotex settled this matter with Apotex agreeing to pay the Company $115 million plus certain other consideration. Januvia, Janumet, Janumet XR — In February 2019, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Par Pharmaceutical) filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity of a patent owned by the Company covering certain salt and polymorphic forms of sitagliptin that expires in 2026. A judgment in its favor may allow Par Pharmaceutical to bring to market a generic version of Janumet XR following the expiration of key patent protection in 2022, but prior to the expiration of the later-granted patent it is challenging. In response, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Par Pharmaceutical and additional companies that also indicated an intent to market generic versions of Januvia, Janumet, and Janumet XR following expiration of key patent protection in 2022, but prior to the expiration of the later-granted patent owned by the Company covering certain salt and polymorphic forms of sitagliptin that expires in 2026, and a later granted patent owned by the Company covering the Janumet formulation which expires in 2028. No schedule for the cases has been set by the court. Gilead Patent Litigation and Opposition The Company, through its Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. subsidiary, has pending litigation against Gilead in the United States, Germany, and France based on different patent estates that would be infringed by Gilead’s sales of their two products, Sovaldi and Harvoni. Gilead opposed the European patent at the European Patent Office (EPO). Trial in the United States was held in December 2016 and the jury returned a verdict for the Company, awarding damages of $2.54 billion. The Company submitted post-trial motions, including on the issues of enhanced damages and future royalties. Gilead submitted post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law. A hearing on the motions was held in September 2017. Also, in September 2017, the court denied the Company’s motion on enhanced damages, granted its motion on prejudgment interest and deferred its motion on future royalties. In February 2018, the court granted Gilead’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and found the patent was invalid for a lack of enablement. The Company appealed this decision. The appellate briefing is completed and the Company is waiting for the oral argument to be scheduled. The EPO opposition division revoked the European patent, and the Company appealed this decision. The cases in France and Germany have been stayed pending the final decision of the EPO. Other Litigation There are various other pending legal proceedings involving the Company, principally product liability and intellectual property lawsuits. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of such proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate. Legal Defense Reserves Legal defense costs expected to be incurred in connection with a loss contingency are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable. Some of the significant factors considered in the review of these legal defense reserves are as follows: the actual costs incurred by the Company; the development of the Company’s legal defense strategy and structure in light of the scope of its litigation; the number of cases being brought against the Company; the costs and outcomes of completed trials and the most current information regarding anticipated timing, progression, and related costs of pre-trial activities and trials in the associated litigation. The amount of legal defense reserves as of December 31, 2018 and 2017 of approximately $245 million and $160 million, respectively, represents the Company’s best estimate of the minimum amount of defense costs to be incurred in connection with its outstanding litigation; however, events such as additional trials and other events that could arise in the course of its litigation could affect the ultimate amount of legal defense costs to be incurred by the Company. The Company will continue to monitor its legal defense costs and review the adequacy of the associated reserves and may determine to increase the reserves at any time in the future if, based upon the factors set forth, it believes it would be appropriate to do so. Environmental Matters As previously disclosed, Merck’s facilities in Oss, the Netherlands, were inspected in 2012 by the Province of Brabant (Province) pursuant to the Dutch Hazards of Major Accidents Decree and the sites’ environmental permits. The Province issued penalties for alleged violations of regulations governing preventing and managing accidents with hazardous substances, and the government also issued a fine for alleged environmental violations at one of the Oss facilities, which together totaled $235 thousand. The Company was subsequently advised that a criminal investigation had been initiated based upon certain of the issues that formed the basis of the administrative enforcement action by the Province. As previously disclosed, the matter was settled, without any admission of liability, for an aggregate payment of €400 thousand. The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of proceedings brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, and other federal and state equivalents. These proceedings seek to require the operators of hazardous waste disposal facilities, transporters of waste to the sites and generators of hazardous waste disposed of at the sites to clean up the sites or to reimburse the government for cleanup costs. The Company has been made a party to these proceedings as an alleged generator of waste disposed of at the sites. In each case, the government alleges that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the cleanup costs. Although joint and several liability is alleged, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of cleanup costs among the parties more nearly reflects the relative contributions of the parties to the site situation. The Company’s potential liability varies greatly from site to site. For some sites the potential liability is de minimis and for others the final costs of cleanup have not yet been determined. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of many of these proceedings brought by federal or state agencies or private litigants, in the opinion of the Company, such proceedings should not ultimately result in any liability which would have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company. The Company has taken an active role in identifying and accruing for these costs and such amounts do not include any reduction for anticipated recoveries of cleanup costs from former site owners or operators or other recalcitrant potentially responsible parties. In management’s opinion, the liabilities for all environmental matters that are probable and reasonably estimable have been accrued and totaled $71 million and $82 million at December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. These liabilities are undiscounted, do not consider potential recoveries from other parties and will be paid out over the periods of remediation for the applicable sites, which are expected to occur primarily over the next 15 years. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these matters, or the ultimate costs of remediation, management does not believe that any reasonably possible expenditures that may be incurred in excess of the liabilities accrued should exceed $60 million in the aggregate. Management also does not believe that these expenditures should result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources for any year.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration