COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Embraco Antitrust Matters

Beginning in February 2009, our compressor business headquartered in Brazil ("Embraco") was notified of investigations of the global compressor industry by government authorities in various jurisdictions. In 2012, Embraco sales represented approximately 8% of our global net sales.

Government authorities in Brazil, Europe, the United States, and other jurisdictions have entered into agreements with Embraco and concluded their investigations of the Company. In connection with these agreements, Embraco has acknowledged violations of antitrust law with respect to the sale of compressors at various times from 2004 through 2007 and agreed to pay fines or settlement payments.

Since the government investigations commenced in February 2009, Embraco has been named as a defendant in related antitrust lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking damages in connection with the pricing of compressors during certain periods beginning in 1996 or later. Several other compressor manufacturers who are the subject of the government investigations have also been named as defendants in the antitrust lawsuits. United States federal lawsuits instituted on behalf of purported “direct” and “indirect” purchasers and containing class action allegations have been combined in one proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (“Michigan Lawsuit”).

On February 12, 2013, Embraco entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs representing a proposed settlement class of direct purchasers of compressors in the Michigan Lawsuit. The settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval, provides for, among other things, the payment by Embraco of up to $30 million in exchange for a release by all settlement class members. The settlement agreement, which was accrued for as of December 31, 2012, does not cover any claims by direct purchasers which opt out of the proposed settlement class and the settlement amount will be reduced if there are opt-outs. The settlement agreement does not cover claims by “indirect purchaser” plaintiffs in the Michigan Lawsuit, which remain pending.

Other lawsuits are also pending and additional lawsuits may be filed by purported purchasers of compressors (including by any plaintiffs that may opt out of the proposed direct purchaser settlement of the Michigan Lawsuit to bring their own lawsuit) or other plaintiffs. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it is not possible to predict the amount, if any, of damages Embraco could be required to pay, but any such damages could be significant. We will also incur fees and expenses in defending these claims.

In connection with these agreements and other Embraco antitrust matters, at June 30, 2013 we have already incurred, in the aggregate, charges of approximately $363 million, including fines, defense costs and other expenses. These charges have been recorded within interest and sundry income (expense). At June 30, 2013, $103 million remains accrued, with installment payments of $68 million, plus interest, remaining to be made to government authorities at various times through 2015.

We continue to work toward resolution of ongoing government actions in other jurisdictions, to defend the related antitrust lawsuits and to take other steps to minimize our potential exposure. The final outcome and impact of these matters, and any related claims and investigations that may be brought in the future are subject to many variables, and cannot be predicted. We establish accruals only for those matters where we determine that a loss is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. While it is currently not possible to reasonably estimate the aggregate amount of costs which we may incur in connection with these matters, such costs could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.

Brazil Tax Matters

Relying on existing Brazilian legal precedent, in 2003 and 2004, we recognized tax credits in an aggregate amount of $26 million, adjusted for currency, on the purchase of raw materials used in production (“IPI tax credits”). The Brazilian tax authority subsequently challenged the recording of IPI tax credits. No credits have been recognized since 2004. In 2009, we entered into a special Brazilian government program which provided extended payment terms and reduced penalties and interest to encourage tax payers to resolve this and certain other disputed tax credit amounts. As permitted by the program, we elected to settle certain debts through the use of other existing tax credits and recorded charges of approximately $34 million in 2009 associated with these matters. In July 2012, the Brazilian revenue authority notified us that a portion of our proposed settlement was rejected and we received tax assessments of 187 million Brazilian reais (equivalent to $84 million) in 2013, reflecting the original assessment, plus interest and penalties. We are disputing these assessments and we intend to vigorously defend our position. Based on our analysis of the facts, including the opinion of our legal advisors, we have not recorded an additional reserve related to these matters.

In 2001, Brazil adopted a law making the profits of controlled foreign corporations of Brazilian entities subject to income and social contribution tax regardless of whether the profits were repatriated. Our Brazilian subsidiary, along with other corporations, challenged tax assessments on foreign profits on constitutionality and other grounds. In April 2013, the Brazilian Supreme Court ruled in our case, finding that the law is constitutional, but remanding the case to a lower court for consideration of other arguments raised in our appeal, including the existence of tax treaties with jurisdictions in which controlled foreign corporations are domiciled. As of June 30, 2013, our potential exposure for income and social contribution taxes relating to profits of controlled foreign corporations, including interest and penalties and net of expected foreign tax credits, is 119 million reais (equivalent to $54 million). We believe these assessments are without merit and we intend to continue to vigorously dispute them. Based on the advice of legal and tax counsel, we have not accrued any amount related to these assessments as of June 30, 2013.

We are currently disputing other assessments issued by the Brazilian tax authorities related to non-income and income tax matters, which are at various stages of review in numerous administrative and judicial proceedings. We routinely assess these matters and record our best estimate of loss in situations where we assess the likelihood of an ultimate loss to be probable. We believe these assessments are without merit and are vigorously defending our positions, however, each of these matters may take several years to resolve and the outcome of litigation is inherently unpredictable.

BEFIEX Credits

In previous years, our Brazilian operations earned tax credits under the Brazilian government’s export incentive program (BEFIEX). These credits reduced Brazilian federal excise taxes on domestic sales, resulting in an increase in the operations’ recorded net sales. We recognize export credits as they are monetized, based on a favorable court decision in 2005, which was upheld by a December 2011 appellate court decision, however, future actions by the Brazilian government could limit our ability to monetize these export credits.

Our Brazilian operations have received governmental assessments related to claims for income and social contribution taxes associated with BEFIEX credits monetized from 2000 through 2002 and 2007 through 2011. We do not believe BEFIEX export credits are subject to income or social contribution taxes. We are disputing these tax matters in various courts and intend to vigorously defend our positions. We have not provided for income or social contribution taxes on these export credits, and based on the opinions of tax and legal advisors, we have not accrued any amount related to these assessments as of June 30, 2013. The total amount of outstanding tax assessments received for income and social contribution taxes relating to the BEFIEX credits, including interest and penalties, is approximately 1.2 billion Brazilian reais (equivalent to approximately $550 million) as of June 30, 2013.

Litigation is inherently unpredictable and the conclusion of these matters may take many years to ultimately resolve, during which time the amounts related to these assessments will continue to be increased by monetary adjustments at the Selic rate, which is the benchmark rate set by the Brazilian Central Bank. Accordingly, it is possible that an unfavorable outcome in these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity, or results of operations in any particular reporting period.

Other Litigation

We are currently defending against numerous lawsuits pending in federal and state courts in the United States and various jurisdictions in Canada relating to certain of our front load washing machines. Some of these lawsuits have been certified for treatment as class actions. The complaints in these lawsuits generally allege violations of state consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment and breach of warranty. The complaints generally seek unspecified compensatory, consequential and punitive damages. We believe these suits are without merit and are vigorously defending them. Given the preliminary stage of these proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any, at this time. The resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements.

In addition, we are currently defending a number of other lawsuits in federal and state courts in the United States related to the manufacturing and sale of our products which include class action allegations. These lawsuits allege claims which include breach of contract, breach of warranty, product defect, fraud, violation of federal and state consumer protection acts and negligence. We do not have insurance coverage for class action lawsuits. We are also involved in various other legal actions arising in the normal course of business, for which insurance coverage may or may not be available depending on the nature of the action. We dispute the merits of these suits and actions, and intend to vigorously defend them. Management believes, based upon its current knowledge, after taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of such suits and actions, and after taking into account current litigation accruals, that the outcome of these matters currently pending against Whirlpool should not have a material adverse effect, if any, on our Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements.

Product Warranty and Recall Reserves

Product warranty and recall reserves are included in other current and other noncurrent liabilities in our Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets. The following table summarizes the changes in total product warranty and recall reserves for the periods presented:



Millions of dollars	2013			2012
Balance at January 1	$	187		$	191
Issuances/accruals during the period	177			188
Settlements made during the period	(177		)	(195		)
Other changes	(2		)	(3		)
Balance at June 30	$	185		$	181
Current portion	$	143		$	148
Non-current portion	42			33
Total	$	185		$	181

We regularly engage in investigations of potential quality and safety issues as part of our ongoing effort to deliver quality products to customers. We are currently investigating a limited number of potential quality and safety issues. As necessary, we undertake to effect repair or replacement of appliances in the event that an investigation leads to the conclusion that such action is warranted.

Guarantees

We have guarantee arrangements in a Brazilian subsidiary. As a standard business practice in Brazil, the subsidiary guarantees customer lines of credit at commercial banks to support purchases following its normal credit policies. If a customer were to default on its line of credit with the bank, our subsidiary would be required to satisfy the obligation with the bank and the receivable would revert back to the subsidiary. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the guaranteed amounts totaled $388 million and $449 million, respectively. Our subsidiary insures against credit risk for these guarantees, under normal operating conditions, through policies purchased from high-quality underwriters.

We provide guarantees of indebtedness and lines of credit for various consolidated subsidiaries. The maximum amount of credit facilities available under these lines for consolidated subsidiaries totaled $1.4 billion at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012. Our total outstanding bank indebtedness under guarantees at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 was nominal.

We have guaranteed a $50 million five year revolving credit facility between certain financial institutions and a not-for-profit entity in connection with a community and economic development project (“Harbor Shores”). The credit facility, which originated in 2008, was refinanced in December 2012 and we renewed our guarantee through 2017. The fair value of the guarantee was nominal. The purpose of Harbor Shores is to stimulate employment and growth in the areas of Benton Harbor and St. Joseph, Michigan. In the event of default, we must satisfy the guarantee of the credit facility up to the amount borrowed at the date of default.