Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
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. 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 ($57 million as of September 30, 2017) 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 ($90 million as of September 30, 2017). We have appealed this order. In addition, the Excise Authority issued additional show cause notices in February 2015, December 2015 and October 2017 on the same issue but covering the periods January to October 2014, November 2014 to September 2015 and October 2015 to June 2017, respectively. These notices added a total of 4.9 billion Indian rupees ($75 million as of September 30, 2017) of unpaid excise taxes as well as penalties to be determined up to an amount equivalent to that claimed by the Excise Authority plus interest. With the implementation of the new Goods and Services Tax in India in July 2017, we will not receive any further show cause notices for additional amounts on this issue. 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 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 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 September 30, 2017, we had no material third-party guarantees recorded on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. Tax Matters: As part of our 2010 Cadbury acquisition, we became the responsible party for tax matters under a February 2, 2006 dated Deed of Tax Covenant between the Cadbury Schweppes PLC and related entities (“Schweppes”) and Black Lion Beverages and related entities. The tax matters included an ongoing transfer pricing case with the Spanish tax authorities related to the Schweppes businesses Cadbury divested prior to our acquisition of Cadbury. During the first quarter of 2017, the Spanish Supreme Court decided the case in our favor. As a result of the final ruling, during the first quarter of 2017, we recorded a favorable earnings impact of $46 million in selling, general and administrative expenses and $12 million in interest and other expense, net, for a total pre-tax impact of $58 million due to the non-cash reversal of Cadbury-related accrued liabilities related to this matter. In the third quarter of 2017, we recorded additional income of $3 million related to a bank guarantee release within selling, general and administrative expenses and interest and other expense, net. During the first quarter of 2017, the Brazilian Supreme Court (the “Court”) ruled against the Brazilian tax authorities in a leading case related to the computation of certain indirect taxes. The Court ruled that the indirect tax base should not include a value-added tax known as “ICMS”. By removing the ICMS from the tax base, the Court effectively eliminated a “tax on a tax.” Our Brazilian subsidiary had received an injunction against making payments for the “tax on a tax” in 2008 and since that time until December 2016, had accrued this portion of the tax each quarter in the event that the tax was reaffirmed by the Brazilian courts. On September 30, 2017, based on legal advice and the publication of the Court’s decision related to this case, we determined that the likelihood that the increased tax base would be reinstated and assessed against us was remote. Accordingly, we reversed our accrual of 667 million Brazilian reais, or $212 million as of September 30, 2017, of which, $153 million was recorded within selling, general and administrative expenses and $59 million was recorded within interest and other expense, net. The Brazilian tax authority may appeal the Court’s decision, seeking potential clarification or adjustment of the terms of enforcement. We continue to monitor developments in this matter and currently do not expect a material future impact on our financial statements.

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.

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 ($57 million as of September 30, 2017) 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 ($90 million as of September 30, 2017). We have appealed this order. In addition, the Excise Authority issued additional show cause notices in February 2015, December 2015 and October 2017 on the same issue but covering the periods January to October 2014, November 2014 to September 2015 and October 2015 to June 2017, respectively. These notices added a total of 4.9 billion Indian rupees ($75 million as of September 30, 2017) of unpaid excise taxes as well as penalties to be determined up to an amount equivalent to that claimed by the Excise Authority plus interest. With the implementation of the new Goods and Services Tax in India in July 2017, we will not receive any further show cause notices for additional amounts on this issue. 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 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 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 September 30, 2017, we had no material third-party guarantees recorded on our condensed consolidated balance sheet.

Tax Matters:

As part of our 2010 Cadbury acquisition, we became the responsible party for tax matters under a February 2, 2006 dated Deed of Tax Covenant between the Cadbury Schweppes PLC and related entities (“Schweppes”) and Black Lion Beverages and related entities. The tax matters included an ongoing transfer pricing case with the Spanish tax authorities related to the Schweppes businesses Cadbury divested prior to our acquisition of Cadbury. During the first quarter of 2017, the Spanish Supreme Court decided the case in our favor. As a result of the final ruling, during the first quarter of 2017, we recorded a favorable earnings impact of $46 million in selling, general and administrative expenses and $12 million in interest and other expense, net, for a total pre-tax impact of $58 million due to the non-cash reversal of Cadbury-related accrued liabilities related to this matter. In the third quarter of 2017, we recorded additional income of $3 million related to a bank guarantee release within selling, general and administrative expenses and interest and other expense, net.

During the first quarter of 2017, the Brazilian Supreme Court (the “Court”) ruled against the Brazilian tax authorities in a leading case related to the computation of certain indirect taxes. The Court ruled that the indirect tax base should not include a value-added tax known as “ICMS”. By removing the ICMS from the tax base, the Court effectively eliminated a “tax on a tax.” Our Brazilian subsidiary had received an injunction against making payments for the “tax on a tax” in 2008 and since that time until December 2016, had accrued this portion of the tax each quarter in the event that the tax was reaffirmed by the Brazilian courts. On September 30, 2017, based on legal advice and the publication of the Court’s decision related to this case, we determined that the likelihood that the increased tax base would be reinstated and assessed against us was remote. Accordingly, we reversed our accrual of 667 million Brazilian reais, or $212 million as of September 30, 2017, of which, $153 million was recorded within selling, general and administrative expenses and $59 million was recorded within interest and other expense, net. The Brazilian tax authority may appeal the Court’s decision, seeking potential clarification or adjustment of the terms of enforcement. We continue to monitor developments in this matter and currently do not expect a material future impact on our financial statements.