Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings: We routinely are involved in legal proceedings, claims and governmental inspections or investigations (“Legal Matters”) arising in the ordinary course of our business. A compliant and ethical corporate culture, which includes adhering to laws and industry regulations in all jurisdictions in which we do business, is integral to our success. Accordingly, after we acquired Cadbury in February 2010, we began reviewing and adjusting, as needed, Cadbury’s operations in light of applicable standards as well as our policies and practices. We initially focused on such high priority areas as food safety, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and antitrust. Based upon Cadbury’s pre-acquisition policies and compliance programs and our post-acquisition reviews, our preliminary findings indicated that Cadbury’s overall state of compliance was sound. Nonetheless, through our reviews, we determined that in certain jurisdictions, including India, there appeared to be facts and circumstances warranting further investigation. We are continuing our investigations in certain jurisdictions, including in India, and we continue to cooperate with governmental authorities. As we previously disclosed, on February 1, 2011, we received a subpoena from the SEC in connection with an investigation under the FCPA, primarily related to a facility in India that we acquired in the Cadbury acquisition. The subpoena primarily requests information regarding dealings with Indian governmental agencies and officials to obtain approvals related to the operation of that facility. We are continuing to cooperate with the U.S. and Indian governments in their investigations of these matters. On February 11, 2016, we received a “Wells” notice from the SEC indicating that the staff has made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against us for violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), in connection with the investigation. On March 18, 2016, we made a submission to the staff of the SEC in response to the notice. We have engaged in discussions with the SEC and with the U.S. Department of Justice to discuss potential resolution of their respective investigations. In February 2013 and March 2014, Cadbury India Limited (now known as Mondelez India Foods Private Limited), a subsidiary of Mondelēz International, and other parties received show cause notices from the Indian Central Excise Authority (the “Excise Authority”) calling upon the parties to demonstrate why the Excise Authority should not collect a total of 3.7 billion Indian rupees ($55 million as of June 30, 2016) of unpaid excise tax and an equivalent amount of penalties, as well as interest, related to production at the same Indian facility. We contested these demands for unpaid excise taxes, penalties and interest. On March 27, 2015, after several hearings, the Commissioner of the Excise Authority issued an order denying the excise exemption that we claimed for the Indian facility and confirming the Excise Authority’s demands for total taxes and penalties in the amount of 5.8 billion Indian rupees ($87 million as of June 30, 2016). We have appealed this order. In addition, the Excise Authority issued additional show cause notices on February 6, 2015 and December 8, 2015 on the same issue but covering the periods January to October 2014 and November 2014 to September 2015, respectively. These notices added a total of 2.4 billion Indian rupees ($35 million as of June 30, 2016) of unpaid excise taxes as well as penalties to be determined up to an amount equivalent to that claimed by the Excise Authority and interest. We believe that the decision to claim the excise tax benefit is valid and we are continuing to contest the show cause notices through the administrative and judicial process. In April 2013, the staff of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) advised us and Kraft Foods Group that it was investigating activities related to the trading of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to the Spin-Off of Kraft Foods Group. We cooperated with the staff in its investigation. On April 1, 2015, the CFTC filed a complaint against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelēz Global LLC (“Mondelēz Global”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the “CFTC action”). The complaint alleges that Kraft Foods Group and Mondelēz Global (1) manipulated or attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during the fall of 2011; (2) violated position limit levels for wheat futures and (3) engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both sides of exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat contracts. The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple the monetary gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) or $1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or 9(a)(2) of the Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of the Act, plus post-judgment interest; an order of permanent injunction prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelēz Global from violating specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits; and costs and fees. In December 2015, the court denied Mondelēz Global and Kraft Foods Group’s motion to dismiss the CFTC’s claims of market manipulation and attempted manipulation, and the parties are now in discovery. Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelēz Global in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by investors in wheat futures and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The complaints make similar allegations as those made in the CFTC action and seek class action certification; an unspecified amount for damages, interest and unjust enrichment; costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory, and other unspecified relief. In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. In June 2016, the court denied Mondelēz Global and Kraft Foods Group’s motion to dismiss, and the parties are now in discovery. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters; however, based on our Separation and Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, we expect to predominantly bear any monetary penalties or other payments in connection with the CFTC action. While we cannot predict with certainty the results of any Legal Matters in which we are currently involved, we do not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve any of these Legal Matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our financial results. Third-Party Guarantees: We enter into third-party guarantees primarily to cover the long-term obligations of our vendors. As part of these transactions, we guarantee that third parties will make contractual payments or achieve performance measures. At June 30, 2016, we had no material third-party guarantees recorded on our condensed consolidated balance sheet.

Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings:

We routinely are involved in legal proceedings, claims and governmental inspections or investigations (“Legal Matters”) arising in the ordinary course of our business.

A compliant and ethical corporate culture, which includes adhering to laws and industry regulations in all jurisdictions in which we do business, is integral to our success. Accordingly, after we acquired Cadbury in February 2010, we began reviewing and adjusting, as needed, Cadbury’s operations in light of applicable standards as well as our policies and practices. We initially focused on such high priority areas as food safety, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and antitrust. Based upon Cadbury’s pre-acquisition policies and compliance programs and our post-acquisition reviews, our preliminary findings indicated that Cadbury’s overall state of compliance was sound. Nonetheless, through our reviews, we determined that in certain jurisdictions, including India, there appeared to be facts and circumstances warranting further investigation. We are continuing our investigations in certain jurisdictions, including in India, and we continue to cooperate with governmental authorities.

As we previously disclosed, on February 1, 2011, we received a subpoena from the SEC in connection with an investigation under the FCPA, primarily related to a facility in India that we acquired in the Cadbury acquisition. The subpoena primarily requests information regarding dealings with Indian governmental agencies and officials to obtain approvals related to the operation of that facility. We are continuing to cooperate with the U.S. and Indian governments in their investigations of these matters. On February 11, 2016, we received a “Wells” notice from the SEC indicating that the staff has made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against us for violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), in connection with the investigation. On March 18, 2016, we made a submission to the staff of the SEC in response to the notice. We have engaged in discussions with the SEC and with the U.S. Department of Justice to discuss potential resolution of their respective investigations.

In February 2013 and March 2014, Cadbury India Limited (now known as Mondelez India Foods Private Limited), a subsidiary of Mondelēz International, and other parties received show cause notices from the Indian Central Excise Authority (the “Excise Authority”) calling upon the parties to demonstrate why the Excise Authority should not collect a total of 3.7 billion Indian rupees ($55 million as of June 30, 2016) of unpaid excise tax and an equivalent amount of penalties, as well as interest, related to production at the same Indian facility. We contested these demands for unpaid excise taxes, penalties and interest. On March 27, 2015, after several hearings, the Commissioner of the Excise Authority issued an order denying the excise exemption that we claimed for the Indian facility and confirming the Excise Authority’s demands for total taxes and penalties in the amount of 5.8 billion Indian rupees ($87 million as of June 30, 2016). We have appealed this order. In addition, the Excise Authority issued additional show cause notices on February 6, 2015 and December 8, 2015 on the same issue but covering the periods January to October 2014 and November 2014 to September 2015, respectively. These notices added a total of 2.4 billion Indian rupees ($35 million as of June 30, 2016) of unpaid excise taxes as well as penalties to be determined up to an amount equivalent to that claimed by the Excise Authority and interest. We believe that the decision to claim the excise tax benefit is valid and we are continuing to contest the show cause notices through the administrative and judicial process.

In April 2013, the staff of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) advised us and Kraft Foods Group that it was investigating activities related to the trading of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to the Spin-Off of Kraft Foods Group. We cooperated with the staff in its investigation. On April 1, 2015, the CFTC filed a complaint against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelēz Global LLC (“Mondelēz Global”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the “CFTC action”). The complaint alleges that Kraft Foods Group and Mondelēz Global (1) manipulated or attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during the fall of 2011; (2) violated position limit levels for wheat futures and (3) engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both sides of exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat contracts. The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple the monetary gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) or $1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or 9(a)(2) of the Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of the Act, plus post-judgment interest; an order of permanent injunction prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelēz Global from violating specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits; and costs and fees. In December 2015, the court denied Mondelēz Global and Kraft Foods Group’s motion to dismiss the CFTC’s claims of market manipulation and attempted manipulation, and the parties are now in discovery. Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelēz Global in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by investors in wheat futures and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The complaints make similar allegations as those made in the CFTC action and seek class action certification; an unspecified amount for damages, interest and unjust enrichment; costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory, and other unspecified relief. In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. In June 2016, the court denied Mondelēz Global and Kraft Foods Group’s motion to dismiss, and the parties are now in discovery. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters; however, based on our Separation and Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, we expect to predominantly bear any monetary penalties or other payments in connection with the CFTC action.

While we cannot predict with certainty the results of any Legal Matters in which we are currently involved, we do not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve any of these Legal Matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our financial results.

Third-Party Guarantees:

We enter into third-party guarantees primarily to cover the long-term obligations of our vendors. As part of these transactions, we guarantee that third parties will make contractual payments or achieve performance measures. At June 30, 2016, we had no material third-party guarantees recorded on our condensed consolidated balance sheet.