XML 35 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3.a.u2

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 14. 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 ($52 million as of December 31, 2019) ("Period 1") 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 and on March 27, 2015, the Commissioner of the Excise Authority (the "Commissioner") issued an order denying the excise exemption that we claimed for Period 1. We appealed this order in June 2015. The Excise Authority issued additional show cause notices in February 2015, December 2015 and October 2017 on the same issue covering additional periods through June 2017 ("Period 2"). These three notices added a total of 4.9 billion Indian rupees ($68 million as of December 31, 2019) of allegedly unpaid excise taxes subject to penalties up to an equivalent amount plus accrued interest. We contested these demands, and on May 25, 2019, the Commissioner issued an order denying the excise exemption that we claimed for Period 2. We appealed this order in August 2019. With the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax ("GST") in India in July 2017, we stopped receiving show cause notices for additional amounts on this issue. Beginning in the fall of 2019, the government of India made available an amnesty to resolve legacy tax issues following the GST implementation. Under the amnesty, upon payment of 50% of the principal demand for cases pending adjudication or appeal as of June 30, 2019 and 60% of the principal demand for cases where the appeal was filed after June 30, 2019, the government would waive the remainder of the principal demand as well as any penalties imposed and interest, and it would also grant immunity from prosecution. Although we continue to believe that our decision to claim the excise tax benefit was valid, in December 2019, we filed for the amnesty and accrued a total of 4.6 billion Indian rupees ($65 million as of December 31, 2019) in selling, general and administrative expenses for this matter. In January 2020, we made the related payments under the amnesty. This matter is now resolved, and the resolution was not material to our business or financial condition. On April 1, 2015, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("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 (the "District Court"), Eastern Division (the “CFTC action”) following its investigation of activities related to the trading of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to the spin-off of Kraft Foods Group. 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. On August 15, 2019, the District Court approved a settlement agreement between the CFTC and Mondelēz Global. The terms of the settlement, which are available in the District Court’s docket, had an immaterial impact on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. On October 23, 2019, following a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the "Seventh Circuit") regarding Mondelēz Global's allegations that the CFTC and its Commissioners violated certain terms of the settlement agreement and the CFTC's argument that the Commissioners were not bound by the terms of the settlement agreement, the District Court vacated the settlement agreement and reinstated all pending motions that the District Court had previously mooted as a result of the settlement. Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelēz Global in the District Court 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 the plaintiffs are seeking class action certification; monetary damages, interest and unjust enrichment; costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory and other unspecified relief. In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the District Court. On January 3, 2020, the District Court granted plaintiffs' request to certify a class. On January 17, 2020, we filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal of the District Court's class certification decision to the Seventh Circuit. 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. Although the CFTC action and the class action complaints involve the same alleged conduct, a resolution or decision with respect to one of the matters may not be dispositive as to the outcome of the other matter. In November 2019, the European Commission informed us that it has initiated an investigation into our alleged infringement of European Union competition law through certain practices restricting cross-border trade within the European Economic Area. We are cooperating with the investigation. The fact that an investigation has been initiated does not mean that the European Commission has concluded that there is an infringement. It is not possible to predict how long the investigation will take or the ultimate outcome of this matter. On August 21, 2018, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (“VDEQ”) issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to Mondelēz Global. In the NOV, the VDEQ alleges that in our Richmond bakery, one operating line did not have the proper minimum temperature on its pollution control equipment and that the bakery failed to provide certain observation and training records. The VDEQ indicated that the alleged violations may lead to a fine and/or injunctive relief. We are working with the VDEQ to reach a resolution of this matter, and we do not expect this matter to have a material effect on our financial results. We are a party to various legal proceedings, including disputes, litigation and regulatory matters, incidental to our business, including those noted above in this section. We record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For matters that are reasonably possible to result in an unfavorable outcome, management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss or such amounts have been determined to be immaterial. At present we believe that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not materially harm our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, legal proceedings and government investigations are subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings or other events could occur. Unfavorable resolutions could involve substantial monetary damages. In addition, in matters for which conduct remedies are sought, unfavorable resolutions could include an injunction or other order prohibiting us from selling one or more products at all or in particular ways, precluding particular business practices or requiring other remedies. An unfavorable outcome might result in a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations or financial position. 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 December 31, 2019, we had no material third-party guarantees recorded on our consolidated balance sheet. Tax Matters: We are a party to various tax matter proceedings incidental to our business. These proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable outcomes could subject us to additional tax liabilities and could materially adversely impact our business, results of operations or financial position. During the fourth quarter of 2019, we resolved several indirect tax matters and recorded $85 million of net indirect tax expenses within selling, general and administrative expenses. These amounts primarily include the matter resolved under the tax amnesty described above under “Legal Proceedings.” A tax indemnification matter related to our 2007 acquisition of the LU biscuit business was closed during the quarter ended June 30, 2018. The closure had no impact on net earnings, however, it did result in a $15 million tax benefit that was fully offset by an $11 million expense in selling, general and administrative expenses and a $4 million expense in 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.” In lower courts, our Brazilian subsidiaries filed lawsuits to recover amounts paid and to discontinue subsequent payments related to the “tax on a tax.” Our Brazilian subsidiaries received injunctions 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. In connection with the Court's 2017 decision, the Brazilian tax authority filed a motion seeking clarification and adjustment of the terms of enforcement and that motion is still to be decided. We continue to monitor developments in this matter and currently do not expect a material future impact on our financial statements. During the fourth quarter of 2018, in one of our lower court cases, the Brazilian Federal Court of Appeals ruled in our favor against the Brazilian tax authority, allowing one of our Brazil subsidiaries to recover amounts previously paid. As a result, we recorded a net benefit in selling, general and administrative expenses of $26 million. 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. We recorded a total of $4 million of income over the third and fourth quarters of 2017 in connection with the related bank guarantee releases.

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