XML 95 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3.a.u2

Litigation | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
LITIGATION | LITIGATION In the course of its business, the Company is subject to a variety of claims and lawsuits, including, but not limited to, litigation relating to product liability and warranty, personal injury, environmental, intellectual property, commercial, contractual and antitrust claims that are inherently subject to many uncertainties regarding the possibility of a loss to the Company. These uncertainties will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur confirming the incurrence of a liability or the reduction of a liability. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic of the ASC, the Company accrues for these contingencies by a charge to income when it is both probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that the Company’s loss contingency is ultimately determined to be significantly higher than currently accrued, the recording of the additional liability may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such additional liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded because it is not probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated, any potential liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded or exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued, the Contingencies Topic of the ASC requires disclosure of the contingency when there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred. Lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. The Company’s past operations included the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The Company, along with other companies, is and has been a defendant in a number of legal proceedings, including individual personal injury actions, purported class actions, and actions brought by various counties, cities, school districts and other government-related entities, arising from the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The plaintiffs’ claims have been based upon various legal theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability, public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories. The plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including personal injury and property damage, costs relating to the detection and abatement of lead-based paint from buildings, costs associated with a public education campaign, medical monitoring costs and others. The Company has also been a defendant in legal proceedings arising from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints that seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including the failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead during surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint. The Company believes that the litigation brought to date is without merit or subject to meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending such litigation. The Company expects that additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be filed against the Company in the future asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief. The Company will continue to vigorously defend against any additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation that may be filed, including utilizing all avenues of appeal, if necessary. Notwithstanding the Company’s views on the merits, litigation is inherently subject to many uncertainties, and the Company ultimately may not prevail. Adverse court rulings or determinations of liability, among other factors, could affect the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation against the Company and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future claims and proceedings. In addition, from time to time, various legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted, promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company and other manufacturers have been successful. Due to the uncertainties involved, management is unable to predict the outcome of the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation, the number or nature of possible future claims and proceedings or the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations may have on the litigation or against the Company. In addition, management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the potential costs and liabilities related to such litigation, or resulting from any such legislation and regulations. Except with respect to the litigation in California discussed below, the Company has not accrued any amounts for such litigation because the Company does not believe it is probable that a loss has occurred, and the Company believes it is not possible to estimate the range of potential losses as there is no substantive information upon which an estimate could be based. In addition, any potential liability that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations cannot reasonably be estimated. In the event any significant liability is determined to be attributable to the Company relating to such litigation or any such liability is higher than any amount currently accrued for such litigation, the recording of the liability may result in a material impact on net income for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. Additionally, due to the uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in such litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties. Public nuisance claim litigation. The Company and other companies are or were defendants in legal proceedings seeking recovery based on public nuisance liability theories, among other theories, brought by the State of Rhode Island; the City of St. Louis, Missouri; various cities and counties in the State of New Jersey; various cities in the State of Ohio and the State of Ohio; the City of Chicago, Illinois; the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; the County of Santa Clara, California, and other public entities in the State of California; and Lehigh and Montgomery Counties in Pennsylvania. Except for the Santa Clara County, California proceeding and the pending Pennsylvania proceedings, all of these legal proceedings have been concluded in favor of the Company and other defendants at various stages in the proceedings. Santa Clara County, California Proceeding. The Santa Clara County, California proceeding was initiated in March 2000 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. In the original complaint, the plaintiffs asserted various claims including fraud and concealment, strict product liability/failure to warn, strict product liability/design defect, negligence, negligent breach of a special duty, public nuisance, private nuisance, and violations of California’s Business and Professions Code. A number of the asserted claims were resolved in favor of the defendants through pre-trial proceedings. The named plaintiffs in the Fourth Amended Complaint, filed on March 16, 2011, are the Counties of Santa Clara, Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Solano and Ventura, as well as the Cities of Oakland and San Diego and the City and County of San Francisco (individually, a Prosecuting Jurisdiction). The Fourth Amended Complaint asserted a sole claim for public nuisance, alleging that the presence of lead pigments for use in paint and coatings in, on and around residences in the plaintiffs’ jurisdictions constitutes a public nuisance. The plaintiffs sought the abatement of the alleged public nuisance that exists within the plaintiffs’ jurisdictions. A trial commenced on July 15, 2013 and ended on August 22, 2013. The court entered final judgment on January 27, 2014, finding in favor of the plaintiffs and against the Company and two other defendants (ConAgra Grocery Products Company and NL Industries, Inc.). The final judgment held the Company jointly and severally liable with the other two defendants to pay $1.15 billion into a fund to abate the public nuisance. The Company strongly disagrees with the judgment. On February 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion for new trial and a motion to vacate the judgment. The court denied these motions on March 24, 2014. On March 28, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California. Oral argument before the Sixth District Court of Appeal was held on August 24, 2017. On November 14, 2017, the Sixth District Court of Appeal entered its decision, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment of liability with respect to residences built before 1951 and reversed and vacated the trial court’s judgment with respect to residences built after 1950. The Sixth District Court of Appeal directed the trial court to: (i) recalculate the amount of the abatement fund to limit the fund to the amount necessary to cover the cost of inspecting and remediating pre-1951 residences; and (ii) hold an evidentiary hearing to appoint a suitable receiver. On November 29, 2017, the Company and the two other defendants filed separate Petitions for Rehearing, which the Sixth District Court of Appeal denied on December 6, 2017. The Sixth District Court of Appeal’s decision became final on December 14, 2017. On December 22, 2017, the Company and the two other defendants submitted separate Petitions for Review to the California Supreme Court. On February 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an order denying the Petitions for Review. On July 16, 2018, the Company filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States seeking discretionary review. On October 15, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the Company's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. On April 17, 2018, the parties filed their briefs with the trial court regarding the recalculation of the amount of the abatement fund. The plaintiffs proposed $730.0 million as the amount of the abatement fund, and the Company and the other two defendants jointly proposed a maximum amount of no more than $409.1 million. On August 17, 2018, the trial court held a hearing regarding the recalculation of the amount of the abatement fund. On September 4, 2018, the trial court ruled that the amount of the abatement fund is $409.1 million. On March 8, 2019, the trial court approved a setoff of $8.0 million to the abatement fund reducing the abatement fund to $401.1 million. On May 17, 2018, NL Industries filed a Motion for Good Faith Settlement, which the Company and ConAgra opposed. The trial court held a hearing on NL Industries’ Motion for Good Faith Settlement on July 12, 2018 and subsequently denied NL Industries' Motion. NL Industries filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Sixth District Court of Appeal seeking to obtain immediate appellate review and reversal of the denial of its motion. On June 20, 2019, the Sixth District Court of Appeal denied the petition for writ of mandate. On April 8, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to recover attorneys’ fees and litigation costs from the abatement fund. On May 10, 2019, the trial court issued a tentative ruling denying the plaintiffs’ motion for fees and costs. On July 17, 2019, the Company, ConAgra and NL Industries reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to resolve the litigation. The agreement provides for a mutual release of all pending and related future claims and contribution rights in exchange for certain payments of money over time by the Company and the other two defendants to the plaintiffs. More specifically, the agreement provides that, in full and final satisfaction of any and all claims of the plaintiffs, the Company and the other two defendants collectively shall pay a total of $305.0 million, with the Company and the other two defendants each paying approximately $101.7 million as follows: (i) an initial payment of $25.0 million within sixty days after the entry of a dismissal order and judgment; (ii) subsequent annual payments of $12.0 million one year after the initial payment and for a period of four years thereafter; and (iii) a final payment of approximately $16.7 million on the sixth anniversary of the initial payment. Should NL Industries fail to make any of its payments required under the agreement, the Company has agreed to backstop and pay on behalf of NL Industries a maximum amount of $15.0 million. To implement the agreement, the Company and the other two defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice and a motion to stay all proceedings, pending the trial court’s approval of the agreement. On July 24, 2019, the trial court approved the agreement, discharged the receiver, and granted a judgment of dismissal with prejudice in favor of the Company and the other two defendants. The Company made its initial payment of $25.0 million to the plaintiffs on September 23, 2019. The Company accrued $136.3 million for this litigation in the third quarter of 2018. During the third quarter of 2019, the Company reduced its accrual by $59.6 million as a result of the final court approved agreement to resolve the litigation and the initial payment of $25.0 million to the plaintiffs in accordance with the agreement. The next payment of $12.0 million is due on September 22, 2020 and is included in current liabilities, while the remaining $64.7 million is included in other long-term liabilities. Pennsylvania Proceedings. Two proceedings in Pennsylvania were initiated in October 2018. The County of Montgomery, Pennsylvania filed a Complaint against the Company and several other former lead-based paint and lead pigment manufacturers in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The County of Lehigh, Pennsylvania also filed a Complaint against the Company and several other former lead-based paint and lead pigment manufacturers in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. The Company removed both actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on November 28, 2018. The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand in each action on January 7, 2019, which the defendants opposed. The federal trial court remanded each action on June 5, 2019. The defendants asked the federal court to stay the order of remand pending appeal, which the federal court granted on June 27, 2019, and the defendants filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 12, 2019, the defendants filed their opening brief with the Third Circuit, to which the plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on September 11, 2019, and the defendants filed their reply brief on October 2, 2019. The Third Circuit took the appeal under submission without oral argument, and the parties are awaiting the Third Circuit’s decision. In both actions, the counties request declaratory relief establishing the existence of a public nuisance and the defendants' contribution to it, the abatement of an ongoing public nuisance arising from the presence of lead-based paint in housing throughout the applicable county, an injunction against future illicit conduct, and the costs of litigation and attorneys' fees. In October 2018, the Company filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Pennsylvania Counties of Delaware, Erie and York seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent the violation of the Company's rights under the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Company voluntarily dismissed defendant Erie County on November 9, 2018 and defendant York County on November 21, 2018. Defendant Delaware County filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, which the federal trial court granted on October 4, 2019. The Company appealed the federal trial court’s dismissal on November 1, 2019 and filed its opening brief in the Third Circuit on January 21, 2020. Litigation seeking damages from alleged personal injury. The Company and other companies are defendants in a number of legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from alleged personal injuries. These proceedings include claims by children allegedly injured from ingestion of lead pigment or lead-containing paint and claims for damages allegedly incurred by the children’s parents or guardians. These proceedings generally seek compensatory and punitive damages, and seek other relief including medical monitoring costs. These proceedings include purported claims by individuals, groups of individuals and class actions. The plaintiff in Thomas v. Lead Industries Association, et al., initiated an action in Wisconsin state court against the Company, other alleged former lead pigment manufacturers and the Lead Industries Association in September 1999. The claims against the Company and the other defendants included strict liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentation and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy and enterprise liability. Implicit within these claims is the theory of “risk contribution” liability (Wisconsin’s theory which is similar to market share liability, except that liability can be joint and several) due to the plaintiff’s inability to identify the manufacturer of any product that allegedly injured the plaintiff. The case ultimately proceeded to trial and, on November 5, 2007, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the plaintiff had ingested white lead carbonate, but was not brain damaged or injured as a result. The plaintiff appealed and, on December 16, 2010, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in favor of the Company and other defendants. Wisconsin is the only jurisdiction to date to apply a theory of liability with respect to alleged personal injury (i.e., risk contribution/market share liability) that does not require the plaintiff to identify the manufacturer of the product that allegedly injured the plaintiff in the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. Although the risk contribution liability theory was applied during the Thomas trial, the constitutionality of this theory as applied to the lead pigment cases has not been judicially determined by the Wisconsin state courts. However, in an unrelated action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., on November 15, 2010, the District Court held that Wisconsin’s risk contribution theory as applied in that case violated the defendants’ right to substantive due process and is unconstitutionally retroactive. The District Court's decision in Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., was appealed by the plaintiff to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On July 24, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 16, 2015, the defendants filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking that Court's review of the Seventh Circuit's decision, and on May 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition. The case is currently pending in the District Court. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin consolidated three cases (Ravon Owens v. American Cyanamid, et al., Cesar Sifuentes v. American Cyanamid, et al., and Glenn Burton, Jr. v. American Cyanamid, et al.) for purposes of trial. A trial commenced on May 6, 2019 and ended on May 31, 2019, with a jury verdict for the three plaintiffs in the amount of $2.0 million each for a total of $6.0 million against the Company and two other defendants (Armstrong Containers Inc. and E.I. du Pont de Nemours). The Company filed a motion for judgment in its favor based on public policy factors under Wisconsin law. On September 20, 2019, the trial court denied the motion and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. On October 18, 2019, the Company filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. If the post-trial motions are denied, the Company intends to appeal the jury verdict. In Maniya Allen, et al. v. American Cyanamid, et al., also pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, cases involving six of the 146 plaintiffs were selected for discovery. In Dijonae Trammell, et al. v. American Cyanamid, et al., also pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, discovery for one of the three plaintiffs was consolidated with the six Allen cases referenced above. The parties have selected four of the cases to proceed to expert discovery and to prepare for trial. On November 14, 2019, the District Court issued an order scheduling trial in the four cases to commence on June 15, 2020. Other lead-based paint and lead pigment litigation. In Mary Lewis v. Lead Industries Association, et al. pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, parents seek to recover the cost of their children’s blood lead testing against the Company and three other defendants that made (or whose alleged corporate predecessors made) white lead pigments. The Circuit Court has certified a statewide class and a Chicago subclass of parents or legal guardians of children who lived in high-risk zip codes identified by the Illinois Department of Health and who were screened for lead toxicity between August 1995 and February 2008. Excluded from the class are those parents or guardians who have incurred no expense, liability or obligation to pay for the cost of their children’s blood lead testing. In 2017, the Company and other defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the three named plaintiffs have not paid and have no obligation or liability to pay for their children’s blood lead testing because Medicaid paid for the children of two plaintiffs and private insurance paid for the third plaintiff without any evidence of a co-pay or deductible. The Circuit Court granted the motion, but on September 7, 2018, the Appellate Court reversed with respect to the two plaintiffs for whom Medicaid paid for their children’s testing. Defendants filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Illinois for discretionary review. By order entered January 31, 2019, that court allowed defendants’ petition for leave to appeal. The defendants filed their opening brief in the Supreme Court of Illinois on April 11, 2019, to which the plaintiffs filed a response brief on June 17, 2019. The defendants filed their reply brief on July 15, 2019. Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court of Illinois on November 14, 2019, and the parties are awaiting the decision. Insurance coverage litigation. The Company and its liability insurers, including certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, initiated legal proceedings against each other to determine, among other things, whether the costs and liabilities associated with the abatement of lead pigment are covered under certain insurance policies issued to the Company. The Company’s action, filed on March 3, 2006 in the Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, previously was stayed and inactive. On January 9, 2019, the Company filed an unopposed motion to lift the stay with the trial court, which was granted, allowing the case to proceed. On June 28, 2019, the Company and its liability insurers each filed separate motions for summary judgment seeking various forms of relief. Oral argument regarding those motions occurred on October 24, 2019, and those motions remain pending before the trial court. The liability insurers’ action, which was filed on February 23, 2006 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, has been dismissed. An ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation would mean that insurance proceeds could be unavailable under the policies at issue to mitigate any ultimate abatement related costs and liabilities. The Company has not recorded any assets related to these insurance policies or otherwise assumed that proceeds from these insurance policies would be received in estimating any contingent liability accrual. Therefore, an ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation without a determination of liability against the Company in the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation will have no impact on the Company’s results of operation, liquidity or financial condition. As previously stated, however, except with respect to the litigation in California discussed above, the Company has not accrued any amounts for the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation and any significant liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company relating to such litigation may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. Other litigation. On December 18, 2019, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the Administrator of the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division in Camden County, New Jersey. The plaintiffs s eek to recover natural resource damages, punitive damages, and litigation fees and costs, as well as other costs, damages, declaratory relief, and penalties pursuant to New Jersey state statutes and common law theories in connection with the alleged discharge of hazardous substances and pollutants at the Company’s Gibbsboro, New Jersey site, a former manufacturing plant and related facilities. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this litigation.

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 legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other 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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration