XML 39 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | Contingencies We have described below 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 $28.6 million and $39.3 million as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, 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. As of June 30, 2020, the sinkhole repairs were substantially complete. 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 10 of our Notes to Condensed 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 6, 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 have been engaged in settlement discussions with U.S. EPA and the Department of Justice, originating with the allegations of violations of Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements at the Plant City sulfuric acid plants and encompassing injunctive relief regarding sulfur dioxide emissions across Mosaic’s Florida sulfuric acid plant fleet. With the closure of Plant City fertilizer operations, there is no longer a need to reach resolution with the government on injunctive relief (i.e., reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions) at that facility. Furthermore, the Department of Justice has determined that there is no basis for proceeding with a settlement, as EPA and the Department have not currently alleged any violations of the Clean Air Act PSD permitting requirements at any other of Mosaic’s Florida sulfuric acid plants. We cannot predict at this time whether EPA and DOJ will initiate an enforcement action in the future with respect to “New Source Review” compliance at our Florida sulfuric acid plants or what its scope would be, or what the range of outcomes might be with respect to such a potential enforcement action. Uncle Sam Gypstack. In January 2019, we observed lateral movement of the north slope of our active phosphogypsum stack at the Uncle Sam facility in Louisiana. The observation was reported to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. EPA. We continue to provide updates to the agencies on the movement, which has slowed following actions we have taken, which include reducing process water volume stored atop the stack to reduce the active load causing the movement; constructing a stability berm at the base of the slope to increase resistance; and removing gypsum from the north side to the south side. These steps have improved slope stability, reduced slope movement and reduced our capacity to store process water. There has been no loss of containment resulting from the movement observed, and none is expected. Although continued lateral movement on the north slope could have a material effect on our future operations at that facility, we cannot predict the prospective impact on our results of operations at this time. 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. The failure of an indemnitor to fulfill its obligations could result in future costs that could be material. Louisiana Parishes Coastal Zone Cases Several Louisiana parishes and the City of New Orleans have filed lawsuits against hundreds of oil and gas companies seeking regulatory, restoration and compensatory damages in connection with historical oil, gas and sulfur mining and transportation operations in the coastal zone of Louisiana. Mosaic is the corporate successor to certain companies which performed these types of operations in the coastal zone of Louisiana. Mosaic has been named in two of the lawsuits filed to date. In addition, in several other cases, historical oil, gas and sulfur operations which may have been related to Mosaic’s corporate predecessors have been identified in the complaints. Based upon information known to date, Mosaic has contractual indemnification rights against third parties for any loss or liability arising out of these claims pursuant to indemnification agreements entered into by Mosaic’s corporate predecessor(s) with third parties. There may also be insurance contracts which may respond to some or all of the claims. However, the financial ability of the third party indemnitors, the extent of potential insurance coverage and the extent of potential liability from these claims is currently unknown. In September 2019, counsel for several of the parishes announced that an agreement had been reached to settle the claims against Mosaic and its corporate predecessors, subject to approval by the participating parishes and the State of Louisiana. In connection with that settlement agreement, the proposed settlement payment obligations would be paid by third party indemnitors. 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 Mine Litigation. 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 (collectively, “NGO Plaintiffs”) 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 NGO Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Corps, the Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior (collectively “Government Defendants”) 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”). In their Complaint, the NGO Plaintiffs sought specific 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 Government Defendants, filed answers to the amended complaint. In June through July 2017, the parties filed competing Motions for Summary Judgment based on the administrative record developed for the challenged federal permits and approvals, consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. On December 14, 2017, the U.S. District Court granted Mosaic’s motion for summary judgment in favor of Mosaic and the Government Defendants, denied all claims raised by the NGO Plaintiffs, and denied the NGO Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the administrative record. On February 12, 2018, the NGO Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit seeking to overturn the U.S. District Court’s decision. Notably, the NGO Plaintiffs did not seek reversal of the Court’s decision as to the Clean Water Act claims, but focused on the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act claims for relief. The appellate case was fully briefed with close coordination between counsel for Mosaic and the Justice Department in developing the Appellants’ Briefs and Reply Briefs. A mandatory mediation occurred on March 19, 2018, but no settlement was reached. Oral argument was held before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on May 22, 2019. On November 4, 2019, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the federal permits issued for Mosaic’s South Pasture Extension Mine and the adequacy of the Area-wide Environmental Impact Statement (AEIS) that served as the NEPA support for three of Mosaic’s new Florida phosphate mines. The Court of Appeals held that the Corps of Engineers’ decision to issue the Clean Water Act 404 Permit and its reliance on the AEIS to satisfy the federal NEPA requirements were proper exercises of its authority. On December 18, 2019, the NGO Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc seeking a rehearing before the entire 15-judge panel of the Court of Appeals. No responses to the Petition for Rehearing are allowed by Mosaic or the Government Defendants, unless requested by the Court. On February 5, 2020, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its Order denying the Petition for Rehearing. Under existing rules, the Appellants would be given 90 days from February 5, 2020 to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. However, due to the Corona Virus pandemic, on March 4th the U.S. Supreme Court issued an Order extending the deadlines for filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (a "Petition") to 150 days. Accordingly, the deadline for the NGO Plaintiffs to file a timely Petition was July 6, 2020. That date has passed, and the NGO Plaintiffs did not file a timely Petition. As a result, the decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the U.S. District Court’s decision (affirming the federal approvals issued for Mosaic’s South Pasture Extension Mine and finding the AEIS consistent with federal law), is final and no longer subject to legal challenge. Brazil Legal Contingencies Our Brazilian subsidiaries are engaged in a number of judicial and administrative proceedings regarding labor, environmental, mining and civil claims that allege aggregate damages and/or fines of approximately $835 million. We estimate that our probable aggregate loss with respect to these claims is approximately $59.6 million, which is included in our accrued liabilities in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2020. Approximately $582.9 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 $52.5 million, which is included in accrued liabilities in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2020. •Approximately $3.5 million of the $59.6 million of reserves relates to a collective lawsuit filed by the labor union in Tapira (no. 114) claiming workers are entitled to overtime pay because the work shift should include transportation time to travel to a facility in which no public transportation was available. •Approximately $3.8 million of these reserves relates to a collective lawsuit filed by the labor union in Rosário do Catete (no. 6654), Sergipe, claiming payment of overtime due to an irregular work shift in force until 2016. Both matters are currently before the Brazilian Labor Superior Court. •Approximately $2.1 million of these reserves relates to a class action filed by one of the unions (no. 1051) claiming additional payment for occupational hazard due to the alleged exposure of workers to explosive gases at the Company's potash mine at Rosário do Catete, Sergipe. 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. The environmental judicial and administrative proceedings claims allege aggregate damages and/or fines in excess of $110.0 million; however, we estimate that our probable aggregate loss regarding these claims is approximately $3.9 million, which has been accrued as of June 30, 2020. The mining judicial and administrative proceedings claims allege aggregate damages and/or fines of approximately $3.4 million. We estimate that our probable aggregate loss regarding these claims will be immaterial as of June 30, 2020. 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 $138.7 million. We estimate that the probable aggregate loss with respect to these matters is approximately $3.9 million. Uberaba Judicial Settlement In 2013, the Federal Public Prosecutor filed a public civil action requesting that the Company adopt several measures to mitigate soil and water contamination related to the Gypstack at our Uberaba facility, located in the State of Minas Gerais, 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 and the parties are negotiating a settlement. The amount claimed in the proceeding is $27.0 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 $333.4 million, of which $156.8 million is subject to an indemnification agreement entered into with Vale S.A in connection with the Acquisition. Approximately $227.0 million of the maximum potential liability relates to a Brazilian federal value added tax, PIS and COFINS, and tax credit cases, while the majority of the remaining amount relates to various other non-income tax cases. 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 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration