XML 57 R31.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.1

Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | CONTINGENCIES We have described below the material judicial and administrative proceedings to which we are subject. Environmental Matters We have contingent environmental liabilities that arise principally from three sources: (i) facilities currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries or their predecessors; (ii) facilities adjacent to currently or formerly owned facilities; and (iii) third-party Superfund or state equivalent sites. At facilities currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries or their predecessors, the historical use and handling of regulated chemical substances, crop and animal nutrients and additives and by-product or process tailings have resulted in soil, surface water and/or groundwater contamination. Spills or other releases of regulated substances, subsidence from mining operations and other incidents arising out of operations, including accidents, have occurred previously at these facilities, and potentially could occur in the future, possibly requiring us to undertake or fund cleanup or result in monetary damage awards, fines, penalties, other liabilities, injunctions or other court or administrative rulings. In some instances, pursuant to consent orders or agreements with governmental agencies, we are undertaking certain remedial actions or investigations to determine whether remedial action may be required to address contamination. At other locations, we have entered into consent orders or agreements with appropriate governmental agencies to perform required remedial activities that will address identified site conditions. Taking into consideration established accruals of approximately $58.6 million and $35.1 million, as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively, expenditures for these known conditions currently are not expected, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material effect on our business or financial condition. However, material expenditures could be required in the future to remediate the contamination at known sites or at other current or former sites or as a result of other environmental, health and safety matters. Below is a discussion of the more significant environmental matters. New Wales Water Loss Incident. In August 2016, a sinkhole developed under one of the two cells of the active Gypstack at our New Wales facility in Polk County, Florida, resulting in process water from the stack draining into the sinkhole. The incident was reported to the FDEP and EPA. In October 2016, our subsidiary, Mosaic Fertilizer, entered into a consent order (the “Order”) with the FDEP relating to the incident. Under the order, Mosaic Fertilizer agreed to, among other things: implement a remediation plan to close the sinkhole; perform additional monitoring of the groundwater quality and act to assess and remediate in the event monitored off-site water does not comply with applicable standards as a result of the incident; evaluate the risk of potential future sinkhole formation at the New Wales facility and at Mosaic Fertilizer’s active Gypstack operations at the Bartow, Riverview and Plant City facilities with recommendations to address any identified issues; and provide financial assurance of no less than $40.0 million, which we have done without the need for any expenditure of corporate funds through satisfaction of a financial strength test and Mosaic parent guarantee. The Order did not require payment of civil penalties relating to the incident. In 2016, we recorded expenses and related accruals of approximately $70.0 million, reflecting our estimated costs related to the sinkhole. At June 30, 2017, we accrued an additional $14.0 million, in part due to refinements in our estimates as repairs progressed and because we determined that a portion of the sinkhole was wider than previously estimated. As of December 31, 2018, the sinkhole repairs were substantially complete, with $79.5 million spent in remediation and sinkhole-related costs through this date. We estimate remaining costs will be approximately $1.5 million. Additional expenditures could be required in the future for additional remediation or other measures in connection with the sinkhole including if, for example, FDEP or EPA were to request additional measures to address risks presented by the Gypstack. These expenditures could be material. In addition, we are unable to predict at this time what, if any, impact the New Wales water loss incident will have on future Florida permitting efforts. EPA RCRA Initiative. We have certain financial assurance and other obligations under consent decrees and a separate financial assurance arrangement relating to our facilities in Florida and Louisiana. These obligations are discussed in Note 14 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. EPA EPCRA Initiative. In July 2008, DOJ sent a letter to major U.S. phosphoric acid manufacturers, including us, stating that EPA’s ongoing investigation indicates apparent violations of Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”) at their phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities. Section 313 of EPCRA requires annual reports to be submitted with respect to the use or presence of certain toxic chemicals. DOJ and EPA also stated that they believe that a number of these facilities have violated Section 304 of EPCRA and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) by failing to provide required notifications relating to the release of hydrogen fluoride from the facilities. The letter did not identify any specific violations by us or assert a demand for penalties against us. We cannot predict at this time whether EPA and DOJ will initiate an enforcement action over this matter, what its scope would be, or what the range of outcomes of such a potential enforcement action might be. Florida Sulfuric Acid Plants. On April 8, 2010, EPA Region 4 submitted an administrative subpoena to us under Section 114 of the Federal Clean Air Act (the “CAA”) regarding compliance of our Florida sulfuric acid plants with the “New Source Review” requirements of the CAA. The request received by Mosaic appears to be part of a broader EPA national enforcement initiative focusing on sulfuric acid plants. On June 16, 2010, EPA issued a notice of violation to CF (the “CF NOV”) with respect to “New Source Review” compliance at the Plant City Facility’s sulfuric acid plants and the allegations in the CF NOV were not resolved before our 2014 acquisition of the Plant City Facility. CF has agreed to indemnify us with respect to any penalty EPA may assess as a result of the allegations in the CF NOV. We are negotiating the terms of a settlement with EPA that would resolve both the violations alleged in the CF NOV, and violations which EPA may contend, but have not asserted, exist at the sulfuric acid plants at our other facilities in Florida. Based on the current status of the negotiations, we expect that our commitments will include an agreement to reduce our sulfur dioxide emissions over the next five years to comply with a sulfur dioxide ambient air quality standard enacted by EPA in 2010. We do not expect that any related penalties assessed against us as part of a potential settlement would be material. In the event we are unable to finalize agreement on the terms of the settlement, we cannot predict at this time whether EPA and DOJ will initiate an enforcement action with respect to “New Source Review” compliance at our Florida sulfuric acid plants other than the Plant City Facility or what its scope would be, or what the range of outcomes might be with respect to such a potential enforcement action or with respect to the CF NOV. Other Environmental Matters. Superfund and equivalent state statutes impose liability without regard to fault or to the legality of a party’s conduct on certain categories of persons who are considered to have contributed to the release of “hazardous substances” into the environment. Under Superfund, or its various state analogues, one party may, under certain circumstances, be required to bear more than its proportionate share of cleanup costs at a site where it has liability if payments cannot be obtained from other responsible parties. Currently, certain of our subsidiaries are involved or concluding involvement at several Superfund or equivalent state sites. Our remedial liability from these sites, alone or in the aggregate, currently is not expected to have a material effect on our business or financial condition. As more information is obtained regarding these sites and the potentially responsible parties involved, this expectation could change. We believe that, pursuant to several indemnification agreements, our subsidiaries are entitled to at least partial, and in many instances complete, indemnification for the costs that may be expended by us or our subsidiaries to remedy environmental issues at certain facilities. These agreements address issues that resulted from activities occurring prior to our acquisition of facilities or businesses from parties including, but not limited to, ARCO (BP); Beatrice Fund for Environmental Liabilities; Conoco; Conserv; Estech, Inc.; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation; Kerr-McGee Inc.; PPG Industries, Inc.; The Williams Companies; CF; and certain other private parties. Our subsidiaries have already received and anticipate receiving amounts pursuant to the indemnification agreements for certain of their expenses incurred to date as well as future anticipated expenditures. We record potential indemnifications as an offset to the established accruals when they are realizable or realized. Phosphate Mine Permitting in Florida Denial of the permits sought at any of our mines, issuance of the permits with cost-prohibitive conditions, substantial delays in issuing the permits, legal actions that prevent us from relying on permits or revocation of permits may create challenges for us to mine the phosphate rock required to operate our Florida and Louisiana phosphate plants at desired levels or increase our costs in the future. The South Pasture Extension. In November 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) issued a federal wetlands permit under the Clean Water Act for mining an extension of our South Pasture phosphate rock mine in central Florida. On December 20, 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity, ManaSota-88, People for Protecting Peace River and Suncoast Waterkeeper issued a 60-day notice of intent to sue the Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) under the federal Endangered Species Act regarding actions taken by the Corps and the Service in connection with the issuance of the permit. On March 15, 2017, the same group filed a complaint against the Corps, the Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The complaint alleges that various actions taken by the Corps and the Service in connection with the issuance of the permit, including in connection with the Service’s biological opinion and the Corps’ reliance on that biological opinion, violated substantive and procedural requirements of the federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”), the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Endangered Species Act (the “ESA”), and were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”). As to the Corps, plaintiffs allege in their complaint, among other things, that the Corps failed to conduct an adequate analysis under the CWA of alternatives, failed to fully consider the effects of the South Pasture extension mine, failed to take adequate steps to minimize potential adverse impacts and violated the ESA by relying on the Service’s biological opinion to determine that its permitting decision is not likely to adversely affect certain endangered or rare species. As to the Service, plaintiffs allege in their complaint, among other things, that the Service’s biological opinion fails to meet statutory requirements, that the Service failed to properly consider impacts and adequately assess the cumulative effects on certain species, and that the Service violated the ESA in finding that the South Pasture extension mine is not likely to adversely affect certain endangered or rare species. The plaintiffs are seeking relief including (i) declarations that the Corps’ decision to issue the permit violated the CWA, NEPA, the ESA and the APA and that its NEPA review violated the law; (ii) declarations that the Service’s biological opinion violated applicable law and that the Corps’ reliance on the biological opinion violated the ESA; (iii) orders that the Corps rescind the permit, that the Service withdraw its biological opinion and related analyses and prepare a biological opinion that complies with the ESA; and (iv) that the Corps be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from authorizing any further action under the permit until it complies fully with the requirements of the CWA, NEPA, the ESA and the APA. On March 31, 2017, Mosaic’s motion for intervention was granted with no restrictions. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2017, without any new substantive allegations, and on June 28, 2017, Mosaic (as intervenor) and separately, the defendants, filed answers to the amended complaint. On June 30, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the permit should not have been issued. On July 15, 2017, Mosaic filed a response in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion, and on July 28, 2017, Mosaic filed its own motion for summary judgment. On December 14, 2017 the Tampa District Court granted Mosaic’s motion for summary judgment in favor of Mosaic and the government defendants, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the administrative record. On February 12, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of the Tampa District Court decision. A mandatory mediation occurred on March 19, 2018, but no settlement was reached. Briefing by all parties was completed on July 13, 2018. We believe the plaintiffs’ claims in this case are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the Corps’ issuance of the South Pasture extension permit and the Service’s biological opinion. However, if the plaintiffs were to prevail in this case, we would be prohibited from continuing to mine the South Pasture extension, and obtaining new or modified permits could significantly delay our resumption of mining and could result in more onerous mining conditions. This could have a material effect on our future results of operations, reduce future cash flows from operations, and in the longer term, conceivably adversely affect our liquidity and capital resources. MicroEssentials® Patent Lawsuit On January 9, 2009, John Sanders and Specialty Fertilizer Products, LLC filed a complaint against Mosaic, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Cargill, Incorporated and Cargill Fertilizer, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the “Missouri District Court”). The plaintiffs alleged that our production of MicroEssentials® value-added ammoniated phosphate crop nutrient products that we produce, infringed on a patent owned by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the alleged infringement and to recover an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees for past infringement. Through an order entered by the court on September 25, 2014, Cargill was dismissed as a defendant, and the two original plaintiffs were replaced by a single plaintiff, JLSMN LLC, an entity to whom the patent was transferred. The Missouri District Court stayed the lawsuit pending reexamination of plaintiff’s patent claims by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”). On September 12, 2012, Shell Oil Company (“Shell”) filed an additional reexamination request which in part asserted that the claims as amended and added in connection with the reexamination are unpatentable. On October 4, 2012, the PTO issued a Reexamination Certificate in which certain claims of the plaintiff’s patent were cancelled, disclaimed and amended, and new claims were added. On December 11, 2012, the PTO issued an initial rejection of all of plaintiff’s remaining patent claims but later reversed its decision. Shell appealed the PTO’s decision. On June 7, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision holding that all patent claims initially allowed to the plaintiff should have been found invalid. On November 8, 2017, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision. On June 25, 2018, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs petition for writ of certiorari. The case in the Missouri District Court has been dismissed with prejudice, and the matter is now concluded. Brazil Legal Contingencies Our Brazilian subsidiaries are engaged in a number of judicial and administrative proceedings regarding labor, environmental and civil claims that allege aggregate damages and/or fines of approximately $1.08 billion. We estimate that our probable aggregate loss with respect to these claims is approximately $47.9 million, which is included in our accrued liabilities in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2018. Approximately $743.7 million of the maximum potential loss relates to labor claims, such as in-house and third-party employees' judicial proceedings alleging the right to receive overtime pay, additional payment due to work in hazardous conditions, risk premium, profit sharing, additional payment due to night work, salary parity and wage differences. We estimate that our probable aggregate loss regarding these claims is approximately $40.7 million, which is included in accrued liabilities in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2018. Based on Brazil legislation and the current status of similar labor cases involving unrelated companies, we believe we have recorded adequate loss contingency reserves sufficient to cover our estimate of probable losses. If the status of similar cases involving unrelated companies were to adversely change in the future, our maximum exposure could increase and additional accruals could be required. Approximately $6.7 million of the above mentioned $40.7 million reserves related to a purported class action filed by one of the unions claiming additional payment for occupational hazard due to the alleged exposure of workers at the Company's potash mine at Rosario do Catete, Sergipe, to explosive gases that could be found during the mining process. The matter currently is before the Brazilian Labor Supreme Court. The environmental and mining judicial and administrative proceedings claims allege aggregate damages and/or fines in excess of $163.3 million; however, we estimate that our probable aggregate loss regarding these claims in approximately $5.6 million, which has been accrued at December 31, 2018. The majority of the reserves involves a claim filed in 2012 by the State Public Prosecutor Office, alleging that the Company delayed construction of an effluent treatment plant, thereby subjecting it to a fine under the commitment agreement. Our Brazilian subsidiaries also have certain other civil contingent liabilities with respect to judicial, administrative and arbitration proceedings and claims related to contract disputes, pension plan matters, real state disputes and other civil matters arising in the ordinary course of business. These claims allege aggregate damages in excess of $172.7 million. We estimate that the probable aggregate loss with respect to these matters is approximately $1.6 million. Uberaba Judicial Settlement In 2013, the Federal Public Prosecutor filed a public civil action requesting the Company adopt several measures to mitigate soil and water contamination related to the gypstack at our Uberaba facility, including compensation for the alleged social and environmental damages. In 2014, our predecessor subsidiary in Brazil entered into a judicial settlement with the federal public prosecutor, the State of Minas Gerais public prosecutor and the federal environmental agency. Under this agreement, we agreed to implement remediation measures such as: constructing a liner under the Gypstack water ponds and lagoons, and monitoring the groundwater and soil quality. We also agreed to create a private reserve of natural heritage and to pay compensation in the amount of approximately $0.3 million, which was paid in July 2018. We are currently acting in compliance with our obligations under the judicial settlement and expect them to be completed by December 31, 2023. Uberaba EHS Class Action In 2013, the State of Minas Gerais public prosecutor filed a class action claiming that our predecessor company in Brazil did not comply with labor safety rules and working hour laws. This claim was based on an inspection conducted by the Labor and Employment Ministry in 2010, following which we were fined for not complying with several labor regulations. We filed our defense, claiming that we complied with these labor regulations and that the assessment carried out by the inspectors in 2010 was abusive. Following the initial hearing, the court ordered an examination to determine whether there has been any non-compliance with labor regulations. The examination is currently pending. The amount involved in the proceeding is $31.8 million. Brazil Tax Contingencies Our Brazilian subsidiaries are engaged in a number of judicial and administrative proceedings relating to various non-income tax matters. We estimate that our maximum potential liability with respect to these matters is approximately $414 million, of which $228 million is subject to an indemnification agreement entered into with Vale S.A. in connection with the Acquisition. Approximately $256 million of the maximum potential liability relates to a Brazilian federal value added tax, PIS and Coffins, and tax credit cases, while the majority of the remaining amount relates to various other non-income tax cases such as value-added taxes. The maximum potential liability can increase with new audits. Based on Brazil legislation and the current status of similar tax cases involving unrelated taxpayers, we believe we have recorded adequate loss contingency reserves sufficient to cover our estimate of probable losses, which are immaterial. If the status of similar tax cases involving unrelated taxpayer changes in the future, additional accruals could be required. Other Claims We also have certain other contingent liabilities with respect to judicial, administrative and arbitration proceedings and claims of third parties, including tax matters, arising in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that any of these contingent liabilities will have a material adverse impact on our business or financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

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