XML 32 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Guarantees and Letters of Credit The Company has various bank guarantees, letters of credit and surety bonds which are used to support its ongoing business operations, satisfy governmental requirements associated with pending litigation in various jurisdictions and the payment of customs duties. At September 30, 2022, the Company had total bank guarantees, commercial guarantees, standby letters of credit and surety bonds of approximately $411 million with various financial institutions. Included in the above aggregate amount was a total of $10 million for other assessments in Brazil for various income tax and indirect tax disputes related to fiscal years 1998-2011. There was a total of approximately $20 million outstanding under the bank guarantees and standby letters of credit and approximately $90 million outstanding under the commercial guarantees as of September 30, 2022. In order to challenge the assessments in these cases in Brazil, the Company has been required to, and has separately pledged assets, principally property, plant and equipment, to cover assessments in the amount of approximately $7 million as of September 30, 2022. Lines of Credit The Company has various lines of credit which are available to support its ongoing business operations. As of September 30, 2022, the Company had available lines of credit of approximately $1.848 billion with various financial institutions, in addition to the $1.489 billion of capacity under the Credit Facility. There were total draw downs of approximately $215 million pursuant to these lines of credit as of September 30, 2022, including approximately $204 million related to the issuance of commercial paper. Refer to Note 8 for additional information. Litigation The Company assesses contingencies related to litigation and/or other matters to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss. A loss contingency is accrued in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable and unfavorable resolutions could occur, assessing contingencies is highly sensitive and requires judgments about future events. On at least a quarterly basis, the Company reviews contingencies related to litigation to determine the adequacy of accruals. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates and further events may require the Company to increase or decrease the amounts it has accrued on any matter. Periodically, the Company assesses its insurance coverage for all known claims, where applicable, taking into account aggregate coverage by occurrence, limits of coverage, self-insured retentions and deductibles, historical claims experience and claims experience with its insurance carriers. The liabilities are recorded at management’s best estimate of the probable outcome of the lawsuits and claims, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the individual matters as well as past experience on similar matters. At each balance sheet date, the key issues that management assesses are whether it is probable that a loss as to asserted or unasserted claims has been incurred and if so, whether the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company records the expected liability with respect to claims in Other liabilities and expected recoveries from its insurance carriers in Other assets. The Company recognizes a receivable when it believes that realization of the insurance receivable is probable under the terms of the insurance policies and its payment experience to date. Litigation Matters On August 12, 2019, Marc Jansen filed a putative securities class action against IFF, its then Chairman and CEO, and its then-CFO, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was filed after IFF disclosed that preliminary results of investigations indicated that Frutarom businesses operating principally in Russia and Ukraine had made improper payments to representatives of customers. On March 16, 2020, an amended complaint was filed, which added Frutarom and certain former officers of Frutarom as defendants. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements or omissions concerning IFF’s acquisition of Frutarom, the integration of the two companies, and the companies’ financial reporting and results. The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and under the Israeli Securities Act-1968, against all defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual defendants, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF securities on the New York Stock Exchange between May 7, 2018 and August 12, 2019 and persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF securities on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between October 9, 2018 and August 12, 2019. The amended complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses. IFF, its officers, and Frutarom filed a motion to dismiss the case on June 26, 2020, which was granted on March 30, 2021. On April 28, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Lead plaintiffs are pursuing the appeal only against Frutarom and certain former officers of Frutarom. The parties have submitted their briefs to the Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit held oral argument on February 10, 2022. On September 30, 2022, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims. On October 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, which is currently pending. Two motions to approve securities class actions were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, in August 2019, similarly alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements largely in connection with IFF’s acquisition of Frutarom and the above-mentioned improper payments. One motion (“Borg”) asserts claims under the U.S. federal securities laws against IFF, its former Chairman and CEO, and its former CFO. On November 8, 2020, IFF and its officers filed their response to the Borg motion. On April 20, 2021, Mr. Borg filed a motion to stay the proceeding pending an appellate decision in the U.S. proceeding. On June 15, 2021, August 11, 2021, November 9, 2021, January 9, 2022, April 7, 2022 and July 10, 2022, the U.S. lead plaintiffs filed update notices with the Israeli court regarding the appeal in the U.S. proceeding. The other motion (“Oman”) (following an initial amendment) asserted claims under the Israeli Securities Act-1968 against IFF, its former Chairman and CEO, and its former CFO, and against Frutarom and certain former Frutarom officers and directors, as well as claims under the Israeli Companies Act-1999 against certain former Frutarom officers and directors. On February 17, 2021, the court granted a motion by the Oman plaintiff to remove IFF and its officers from the motion and to add factual allegations from the US amended complaint. The amended Oman motion was filed on July 4, 2021. On August 29, 2021, the former Frutarom officers and certain former Frutarom directors filed a motion to dismiss the case. On September 30, 2021, Frutarom notified the court that it joins the legal arguments made in the motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On July 14, 2022, the court approved the parties’ motion to mediate the dispute, which postpones all case deadlines until after the mediation. Also stayed is a request to appeal the court’s denial of the motion to dismiss filed by the former Frutarom officers and certain former Frutarom directors. The parties held the first of multiple mediation meetings on September 13, 2022. On October 29, 2019, IFF and Frutarom filed a claim in the Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, against Ori Yehudai, the former President and CEO of Frutarom, and against certain former directors of Frutarom, challenging the bonus of US $20 million granted to Yehudai in 2018. IFF and Frutarom allege, among other things, that Yehudai was not entitled to receive the bonus because he breached his fiduciary duty by, among other things, knowing of the above-mentioned improper payments and failing to prevent them from being made. The parties agreed, pursuant to the court’s recommendation, to attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation, and a court decision is pending with regard to the order in which this claim and the class action described below will be heard. On March 11, 2020, an IFF shareholder filed a motion to approve a class action in Israel against, among others, Frutarom, Yehudai, and Frutarom’s former board of directors, alleging that former minority shareholders of Frutarom were harmed as a result of the US $20 million bonus paid to Yehudai. The parties to this motion agreed to attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation to take place regarding the aforesaid claim against Yehudai. On July 27, 2021, counsel to the movant in the class action filed a notice with the court that the mediation process ended without an agreement. On August 26, 2021, a motion to dismiss the class action application was filed by Yehudai and certain former directors of Frutarom. On September 9, 2021, an additional motion to dismiss was filed by other former directors of Frutarom together with ICC Industries, Inc. and its affiliates. On December 9, 2021, the court denied the motions to dismiss. Responses to the class action motion were filed in May 2022. Investigation On June 3, 2020, the Israel Police’s National Fraud Investigation Unit and the Israeli Securities Authority commenced an investigation into Frutarom and certain of its former executives, based on suspected bribery of foreign officials, money laundering, and violations of the Israeli Securities Act-1968. As part of the investigation, the National Fraud Investigation Unit and the Israeli Securities Authority have provided IFF and Frutarom with various orders, mainly requesting that IFF and Frutarom provide certain documents and materials. In addition, a seizure of assets was imposed on Frutarom and certain of its affiliates. IFF has been working to ensure compliance with such orders, all in accordance with, and subject to, Israeli law. On August 25, 2021, the Israeli Police informed Frutarom that they have decided to remove the temporary criminal seizure of assets order from the real estate assets of Frutarom and its related companies, which was done in parallel with the transfer of the case to the District Attorney’s Office in Israel. China Facilities Guangzhou Taste Plant During the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company was notified that certain governmental authorities have begun to evaluate a change in the zoning of the Guangzhou Taste plant. The zoning, if changed, would prevent the Company from continuing to manufacture product at the existing plant. The ultimate outcome of any change that the governmental authorities may propose, the timing of such a change, and the nature of any compensation arrangements that might be provided to the Company are uncertain. To address the governmental authorities’ requirements, the Company has been transferring certain production capabilities from the Guangzhou Taste plant to a newly built facility in Zhangjiagang. The net book value of the Guangzhou Taste plant was approximately $50 million as of September 30, 2022. Guangzhou Scent Plant During the second quarter of 2019, the Company was notified that certain governmental authorities had changed the zoning where the Guangzhou Scent plant is located. The zoning change did not affect the current operations but prevents expansions or other increases in the operating capacity of the plant. The Company believes that it is possible that the zoning may be enforced in the future such that it would not be able to continue manufacturing at the existing site. The ultimate outcome of any change that the governmental authorities may propose, the timing of such a change, and the nature of any compensation arrangements that might be provided to the Company are uncertain. The net book value of the Guangzhou Scent plant was approximately $7 million as of September 30, 2022. Zhejiang Ingredients Plant In the fourth quarter of 2017, the Company concluded discussions with the government regarding the relocation of its Fragrance Ingredients plant in Zhejiang and, based on the agreements reached, expects to receive total compensation payments up to approximately $50 million. The relocation compensation will be paid to the Company over the period of the relocation which is expected to be through the end of 2022. The Company received payments totaling $30 million through the end of 2019. In the third quarter of 2020, the Company received a payment of approximately $13 million. A final payment is expected to be received upon completion of the final environmental inspection. Production at the facility ceased during 2019. In the second quarter of 2020, the Company transferred ownership of the site to the government. The land remediation activities are in progress and are expected to be completed in the second half of 2022. During the second quarter of 2020, the remaining net book value of the plant was written off. Total China Operations The total net book value of all plants in China was approximately $235 million as of September 30, 2022. If the Company is required to close a plant, or operate one at significantly reduced production levels on a permanent basis, the Company may be required to record charges that could have a material impact on its consolidated financial results of operations, financial position and cash flows in future periods. Environmental Proceedings The Company is reporting the following environmental matter in compliance with SEC requirements to disclose environmental proceedings where a governmental authority is a party and that involve potential monetary sanctions of $300,000 or greater. On May 27, 2022, the Solae, LLC Memphis site (“Solae”) was served an Administrative Order and Assessment (the “Order”) by the City of Memphis related to alleged wastewater discharge violations. Solae submitted an appeal of the Order on June 24, 2022. Discussions with the City regarding potential resolution of the violations and penalties related to said violations are ongoing. While these discussions are progressing, Solae is preparing to present its appeal at a hearing before a review board that may take place in early December 2022. Additionally, the Solae facility has undertaken capital project efforts, some of which began prior to the issuance of the Order, that are anticipated to address, on a schedule consistent with the Order, deadlines for attaining compliance with current wastewater permit requirements. This matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, cash flows or results of operations. Other Contingencies The Company has contingencies involving third parties (such as labor, contract, technology or product-related claims or litigation) as well as government-related items in various jurisdictions in which it operates pertaining to such items as value-added taxes, other indirect taxes, customs and duties and sales and use taxes. It is possible that cash flows or results of operations, in any period, could be materially affected by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies. The most significant government-related contingencies exist in Brazil. With regard to the Brazilian matters, the Company believes it has valid defenses for the underlying positions under dispute; however, in order to pursue these defenses, the Company is required to, and has provided, bank guarantees and pledged assets in the aggregate amount of $17 million. The Brazilian matters take an extended period of time to proceed through the judicial process and there are a limited number of rulings to date. Brazil Tax Credits In January 2020, the Company was informed of a favorable ruling from the Brazilian tax authorities confirming that the Company was entitled to recover the overpayments of certain indirect taxes (known as PIS/COFINS) for the period from November 2011 to December 2018, plus interest on the amount of the overpayments. The overpayments arose from the inclusion of a value added tax known as ICMS in the calculation of the PIS/COFINS tax. The ruling did not, however, settle the question of whether the Company is eligible to recover overpayments based on the gross or the net amount of ICMS amounts paid on PIS/COFINS. The Company calculated the amount of overpayments using the gross method which yields a higher amount than the application of the net method. A final ruling on the gross versus net amount issue was made by the Brazilian Supreme Court who affirmed the use of the gross calculation with respect to claims submitted prior to March 2017. Although the Company had not submitted a claim until after March 2017, the Company believes that the Supreme Court, whilst confirming the use of the gross method of calculation, does not override the January 2020 ruling by the Brazilian tax authorities with respect to the timeframe for the calculation. Avicel® PH NF (Pharma Solutions) The Company has determined that certain grades of microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel® PH 101, 102, and 200 NF and Avicel® RC-591 NF) were found to be out-of-specification (collectively, “OOS Avicel® NF”). The Company does not expect this issue to affect the functionality of Avicel® NF grades or to pose a human health hazard. Corrective actions have been implemented to improve operational and laboratory conditions. Based on the information available, as of September 30, 2022, payments associated with the issue were approximately $34 million, and the Company has a current accrual of approximately $19 million. The total amount of exposure may increase if additional customers present claims or other exposures are identified. Other The Company determines estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses in excess of related accrued liabilities, if any, when it has determined that either a loss is reasonably possible or a loss in excess of accrued amounts is reasonably possible and the amount of losses or range of losses is determinable. For all third party contingencies (including labor, contract, technology, tax, product-related claims and business litigation), the Company currently estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of any accrued liabilities is $0 to approximately $35 million. The estimates included in this amount are based on the Company’s analysis of currently available information and, as new information is obtained, these estimates may change. Due to the inherent subjectivity of the assessments and the unpredictability of outcomes of legal proceedings, any amounts accrued or included in this aggregate amount may not represent the ultimate loss to the Company from the matters in question. Thus, the Company’s exposure and ultimate losses may be higher or lower, and possibly significantly so, than the amounts accrued or the range disclosed above.

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 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration