Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Commitments and Contingencies. Investment Management Exit Facility In connection with Tropicana's completion of the Restructuring Transactions (see Note 2, “Operating Units-Gaming”), Tropicana entered into the Exit Facility, as amended, which consists of a (i) $130 million Term Loan Facility issued at a discount of 7%, which was funded on March 8, 2010, the Effective Date and (ii) $20 million Revolving Facility. Each of the Investment Funds was a lender under the Exit Facility and, in the aggregate, held over 50% of the loans under the Term Loan Facility and was obligated to provide 100% of any amounts borrowed by Tropicana under the Revolving Facility. As described in Note 2, "Operating Units-Gaming," on June 30, 2011, the Investment Funds made a distribution-in-kind of their investment in the Exit Facility to us and as a result we are now the lenders under the Exit Facility. As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Tropicana has not borrowed any amounts under the Revolving Facility. Litigation On October 28, 2010, Lions Gate filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Carl Icahn, Brett Icahn, Icahn Enterprises L.P., Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P., Icahn Enterprises G.P, certain of our Investment Management entities (collectively, the “Icahn Group”) and others alleging violations of the Exchange Act and state tort law in connection with certain disclosures made during tender offers by the Icahn Group to acquire Lions Gate stock relating to the Icahn Group's acquisition of the debt of Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer, Inc., and alleging that the Icahn Group violated the tender offer Best Price Rule (promulgated under the rules and regulations of the SEC) by providing additional consideration to Mark Cuban in exchange for the tender of his Lions Gate shares that was not provided to other tendering shareholders. The complaint sought injunctive relief compelling the Icahn Group to make corrective disclosures and to offer the same consideration it offered to Mark Cuban to Lions Gate's other shareholders, and money damages. Lions Gate amended its complaint on December 3, 2010 to add certain supplemental factual allegations. The Icahn Group moved to dismiss the amended complaint on December 17, 2010. On March 23, 2011, the court granted the Icahn Group's motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all of Lions Gate's claims except its Best Price Rule claim. On September 15, 2011, all pending litigation with Lions Gate was dismissed with prejudice. Automotive Environmental Matters Federal-Mogul is a defendant in lawsuits filed, or the recipient of administrative orders issued or demand letters received, in various jurisdictions pursuant to the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) or other similar national, provincial or state environmental remedial laws. These laws provide that responsible parties may be liable to pay for remediating contamination resulting from hazardous substances that were discharged into the environment by them, by prior owners or occupants of property they currently own or operate, or by others to whom they sent such substances for treatment or other disposition at third party locations. Federal-Mogul has been notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, other national environmental agencies, and various provincial and state agencies that it may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) under such laws for the cost of remediating hazardous substances pursuant to CERCLA and other national and state or provincial environmental laws. PRP designation often results in the funding of site investigations and subsequent remedial activities. Many of the sites that are likely to be the costliest to remediate are often current or former commercial waste disposal facilities to which numerous companies sent wastes. Despite the potential joint and several liability which might be imposed on Federal-Mogul under CERCLA and some of the other laws pertaining to these sites, its share of the total waste sent to these sites has generally been small. Federal-Mogul believes its exposure for liability at these sites is limited. Federal-Mogul has also identified certain other present and former properties at which it may be responsible for cleaning up or addressing environmental contamination, in some cases as a result of contractual commitments and/or federal or state environmental laws. Federal-Mogul is actively seeking to resolve these actual and potential statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations. Although difficult to quantify based on the complexity of the issues, Federal-Mogul has accrued amounts corresponding to its best estimate of the costs associated with such regulatory and contractual obligations on the basis of available information from site investigations and best professional judgment of consultants. Total environmental liabilities, determined on an undiscounted basis, were $17 million and $19 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, and are included in accrued expenses and other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets. Federal-Mogul believes that recorded environmental liabilities will be adequate to cover its estimated liability for its exposure in respect to such matters. In the event that such liabilities were to significantly exceed the amounts recorded by Federal-Mogul, our Automotive segment's results of operations could be materially affected. At September 30, 2011, Federal-Mogul estimates reasonably possible material additional losses, above and beyond its best estimate of required remediation costs as recorded, to approximate $44 million. Asset Retirement Obligations Federal-Mogul has identified sites with contractual obligations and several sites that are closed or expected to be closed and sold. In connection with these sites, Federal-Mogul has accrued $25 million for each of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 for ARO, primarily related to anticipated costs of removing hazardous building materials, and has considered impairment issues that may result from capitalization of these ARO amounts. Federal-Mogul has conditional asset retirement obligations ("CARO"), primarily related to removal costs of hazardous materials in buildings, for which it believes reasonable cost estimates cannot be made at this time because it does not believe it has a reasonable basis to assign probabilities to a range of potential settlement dates for these retirement obligations. Accordingly, Federal-Mogul is currently unable to determine amounts to accrue for CARO at such sites. Gaming Trademark Litigation Certain parties affiliated with the new owners of the Tropicana Las Vegas ("Tropicana LV") filed a declaratory judgment action in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada ("Nevada State Court"), on July 20, 2009, against Aztar Corporation ("Aztar") and Tropicana Entertainment, LLC ("TE") originally seeking a declaratory judgment that Tropicana LV had the right to operate a hotel and casino under the name "Tropicana" without any interference by or payment to Aztar or TE (together, the "Defendants"). The plaintiffs' complaint sought no damages or injunctive relief. On August 10, 2009, Defendants removed the action to the District of Nevada and filed an answer and counterclaim asserting the plaintiffs' use of "Tropicana" infringes upon Defendants' rights in three federally registered trademarks. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to Nevada State Court, which was granted on January 21, 2010. During the course of proceedings, the plaintiffs and Defendants each filed a motion for summary judgment claiming ownership of the "Tropicana" trademark. Both motions were denied, although the Nevada State Court preliminarily found that the plaintiffs might have an unexercised reversionary ownership interest in the “Tropicana” trademark as a result of an agreement that is 30 years old. Nonetheless, because any exercise of this purported reversionary interest by Tropicana LV could potentially deprive the Company, as successor to TE, of its asserted ownership of the Tropicana trademark, the Defendants filed a motion in the Chapter 11 Cases for an order rejecting the 1980 trade name agreement. In addition, the Company, together with its subsidiary, New Tropicana Holdings, Inc. ("New Tropicana"), and certain affiliates of Icahn Capital, as secured lenders to the Company, filed a complaint in the Chapter 11 Cases against the plaintiffs (the “Bankruptcy Court action”), seeking a declaration that, consistent with prior, uncontested orders of the Bankruptcy Court, New Tropicana is the owner of the "Tropicana" trademark, the Exit Facility lenders have a perfected security interest in that property, and the Nevada State Court action, to the extent it sought to assert ownership over the trademark or question the validity of the security interest, violated the automatic stay. The complaint also demanded an injunction against any further efforts by the plaintiffs to re-litigate the ownership issue, and sought other remedies on behalf of the Exit Facility lenders. On August 9, 2011 all parties to the Nevada State Court action and the Bankruptcy Court action entered into a global Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) concluding both actions and governing the respective rights of the parties to the “Tropicana” trademark. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, which became effective on September 28, 2011, the plaintiffs, subject to certain advertising exceptions and other terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, have perpetual exclusive rights to use the names, trademarks and/or service marks (the “Marks”) TROPICANA LAS VEGAS (or TROP LAS VEGAS) and TROPICANA LV (or TROP LV) (the “TLV Marks,” as defined in the Settlement Agreement) in conjunction with its services (“Services,” as defined in the Settlement Agreement) in the City of Las Vegas, Nevada and within a 50-mile radius of the front entrance of the Tropicana Las Vegas Hotel and Casino located at 3801 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, Nevada (the “TLV Territory”) along with certain rights to use the TLV Marks on the internet without geographical limitation (“Internet Uses,” as defined in the Settlement Agreement) and to register the TLV Marks as domain names. Defendants, subject to certain advertising exceptions and other terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, have perpetual exclusive worldwide rights to use the present and future formulated Marks TROPICANA and TROP coupled with either an identifier of its Services or an accurate geographic identifier of the location of a Tropicana Entertainment property (other than LAS VEGAS or the name of any city within the TLV Territory) (the “TE Marks”) outside of the TLV Territory along with Internet Uses rights and domain name registration rights for the TE Marks. Aztar v. Marsh Aztar filed a broker malpractice and breach of contract action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, Law Division (the “Court”) on August 12, 2010, against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Marsh, Inc., Marsh USA, Inc. and various fictitious Marsh entities (together, the "Marsh Defendants"). The claim seeks $100 million or more in compensatory damages against the Marsh Defendants, Aztar's risk management and insurance brokers at the time of a 2002 expansion of Tropicana AC by Aztar, including, but not limited to, lost profits, expenses arising from the interruption of operations, attorneys' fees, loss of the use of the insurance proceeds at issue, and litigation expenses resulting from the Marsh Defendants' failure to secure for Aztar business interruption and property damage coverage covering losses sustained by Aztar from the collapse of a parking garage that occurred at Tropicana AC on October 30, 2003. The Marsh Defendants filed an answer on October 20, 2010 denying the material allegations of the complaint and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens in December 2010, which motion was denied by the Court on April 12, 2011. On August 18, 2011 the Marsh Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the Court should apply the Arizona Statue of Limitations to the action. Aztar filed an objection to the Marsh Defendants' motion on September 23, 2011 arguing, inter alia, that the New Jersey Statute of Limitations applies to the action. The Marsh Defendants filed its Reply on October 3, 2011 and the motion is currently pending before the Court. Discovery is also proceeding, and trial is not expected to take place until 2012, at the earliest. Any recovery obtained by Aztar in this action will be recoverable by the Company as the current owner of Tropicana AC. Railcar Environmental Matters ARI is subject to comprehensive federal, state, local and international environmental laws and regulations relating to the release or discharge of materials into the environment, the management, use, processing, handling, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes, or otherwise relating to the protection of human health and the environment. These laws and regulations not only expose ARI to liability for the environmental condition of its current or formerly owned or operated facilities, and its own negligent acts, but also may expose ARI to liability for the conduct of others or for ARI's actions that were in compliance with all applicable laws at the time these actions were taken. In addition, these laws may require significant expenditures to achieve compliance, and are frequently modified or revised to impose new obligations. Civil and criminal fines and penalties and other sanctions may be imposed for non-compliance with these environmental laws and regulations. ARI's operations that involve hazardous materials also raise potential risks of liability under common law. Management believes that there are no current environmental issues identified that would have a material adverse effect on ARI. Certain real property ARI acquired from ACF in 1994 has been involved in investigation and remediation activities to address contamination. Substantially all of the issues identified relate to the use of this property prior to its transfer to ARI by ACF and for which ACF has retained liability for environmental contamination that may have existed at the time of transfer to ARI. ACF has also agreed to indemnify ARI for any cost that might be incurred with those existing issues. As of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, ARI does not believe it will incur material costs in connection with any investigation or remediation activities relating to these properties, but it cannot assure that this will be the case. If ACF fails to honor its obligations to ARI, ARI could be responsible for the cost of such remediation. ARI believes that its operations and facilities are in substantial compliance with applicable laws and regulations and that any noncompliance is not likely to have a material adverse effect on its operations or financial condition. Other Matters On December 16, 2010, a complaint was filed by Steve Garvin, Deloris Garvin, and Garvin Enterprise, Inc. against ARI’s subsidiaries Southwest Steel I, LLC, Southwest Steel II, LLC and Southwest Steel III, LLC, d/b/a Southwest Steel Casting Co., in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 295th Judicial District. On July 25, 2011, the complaint was amended to include ARI as a party to the litigation. The plaintiffs allege that ARI improperly used their former employees to source components from Chinese suppliers in contravention of contractual relationships among the parties and in a manner that compromised the plaintiffs’ relationships with the Chinese suppliers. The plaintiffs seek direct, consequential and other damages for breach of contract, tortious interference with an existing contract, trade secret misappropriation, civil conspiracy, civil theft, conversion and unfair competition. The plaintiffs also seek declaratory judgment with respect to the parties’ rights under certain agreements. The lawsuit is in the discovery stage and it is not currently possible to estimate the amount of the loss, if any, that could result from this case. One of ARI's joint ventures entered into a credit agreement in December 2007. Effective August 5, 2009, ARI and the other initial joint venture partner acquired this loan from the lenders party thereto, with each party acquiring a 50% interest in the loan. The total commitment under the term loan is $60 million with an additional $10 million commitment under the revolving loan. ARI is responsible to fund 50% of the loan commitments. The balance outstanding on these loans, due to ARI, was $37 million of principal and accrued interest as of September 30, 2011. ARI's share of the remaining commitment on these loans was $4 million as of September 30, 2011. In March 2011, ARI entered into an agreement to purchase certain railcar parts during fiscal 2011 for current railcar orders with a remaining commitment of $21 million as of September 30, 2011. Metals Environmental Matters PSC Metals has been designated as a PRP under U.S. federal and state superfund laws with respect to certain sites with which PSC Metals may have had a direct or indirect involvement. It is alleged that PSC Metals and its subsidiaries or their predecessors transported waste to the sites, disposed of waste at the sites or operated the sites in question. Most recently, PSC Metals has been named as a defendant in an environmental civil action brought by the USEPA, alleging that PSC Metals and one of its subsidiaries, along with several other unrelated defendants, are liable for the recovery of response costs incurred by the USEPA at a superfund site in New York. Management believes that PSC Metals and its subsidiary have valid defenses to all claims. PSC Metals has reviewed the nature and extent of the allegations, the number, connection and financial ability of other named and unnamed PRPs and the nature and estimated cost of the likely remedy in all pending cases. Based on reviewing the nature and extent of the allegations, PSC Metals has estimated its liability to remediate these sites to be immaterial at each of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. If it is determined that PSC Metals has liability to remediate those sites and that more expensive remediation approaches are required in the future, PSC Metals could incur additional obligations, which could be material. Certain of PSC Metals' facilities are environmentally impaired in part as a result of operating practices at the sites prior to their acquisition by PSC Metals and as a result of PSC Metals' operations. PSC Metals has established procedures to periodically evaluate these sites, giving consideration to the nature and extent of the contamination. PSC Metals has provided for the remediation of these sites based upon management's judgment and prior experience. PSC Metals has estimated the liability to remediate these sites to be $29 million and $28 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Management believes, based on past experience, that the vast majority of these environmental liabilities and costs will be assessed and paid over an extended period of time. PSC Metals believes that it will be able to fund such costs in the ordinary course of business. Estimates of PSC Metals' liability for remediation of a particular site and the method and ultimate cost of remediation require a number of assumptions that are inherently difficult to make, and the ultimate outcome may be materially different from current estimates. Moreover, because PSC Metals has disposed of waste materials at numerous third-party disposal facilities, it is possible that PSC Metals will be identified as a PRP at additional sites. The impact of such future events cannot be estimated at the current time. The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has alleged that PSC Metals' scrap processing facility located in Cleveland, Ohio has violated the requirements of Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, 42 USC Section 761, which requires scrap processors to either recover refrigerants from appliances in accordance with the procedures described in the applicable federal regulations or verify through certifications that refrigerants have previously been evacuated. PSC Metals has entered into a consent decree with the EPA that resolves all claims against it. The consent decree will require PSC Metals to pay a civil penalty of $199,000 and includes injunctive relief that will require it to offer refrigerant extraction services at 11 of its scrap processing facilities for the next four years. PSC Metals anticipates the settlement will become final sometime early in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011. PSC Metals estimates that the cost associated with the required injunctive relief will range from $0.8 million to $1.7 million, exclusive of the civil penalty referenced above. Home Fashion Litigation We were defendants in two lawsuits, one in the federal courts in New York and one in the Delaware state courts, challenging, among other matters, the status of our ownership interests in the common and preferred stock of WPI (which was, at that time, a Delaware corporation). We (through Aretex LLC) had acquired ownership of a majority of the WPI common stock through a July 2005 Sale Order entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Under that Sale Order, WPI acquired substantially all of the assets of WestPoint Stevens, Inc. The losing bidders at the Bankruptcy Court auction that led to the Sale Order challenged the Sale Order. In November 2005, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York modified portions of the Sale Order in a manner that could have reduced our ownership of WPI stock below 50%. In its March 26, 2010 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that we are entitled to own a majority of WPI's common stock, and thus have control of WPI. The Second Circuit ordered the Bankruptcy Court's Sale Order reinstated, to ensure that our percentage ownership of the common stock will be at least 50.5%. The Second Circuit ordered the District Court to remand the matter back to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with its ruling. On remand, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order on December 6, 2010 implementing the Second Circuit's decision. On September 23, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered a stipulation dismissing the bankruptcy case, including an adversary proceeding against Aretex LLC and others, and allowing certain funds to be distributed to the first lien lenders. There was also a proceeding in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the same “losing bidders” who are parties to the case decided by the Second Circuit. After the ruling by the Second Circuit, the plaintiffs filed a modified third amended complaint in the Delaware case. In that complaint, the plaintiffs pled claims for breach of fiduciary duty (and aiding and abetting such alleged breach) against us, and against Icahn Enterprises Holdings, Carl C. Icahn and others, based on WPI's not having proceeded with a registration statement. The plaintiffs also asserted a contractual claim against WPI relating to the registration statement alleging that, because WPI did not proceed with the registration statement, the plaintiffs were unable to sell their securities in WPI, and sought to recover the diminution in the value of those securities. The plaintiffs also asserted a claim for unjust enrichment against all defendants, including us, WPI, Icahn Enterprises Holdings, Carl C. Icahn and others, based on claims that defendants were beneficiaries of a stay order allegedly improperly entered by the Bankruptcy Court. On November 3, 2010, the Chancery Court dismissed the modified third amended complaint in its entirety. The plaintiffs appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court. On August 3, 2011, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Chancery Court dismissing the modified third amended complaint, and thus dismissing the case, in its entirety. Environmental Matters WPI is subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations governing, among other things, the discharge, storage, handling and disposal of a variety of hazardous and nonhazardous substances and wastes used in or resulting from its operations and potential remediation obligations. WPI's operations are also governed by U.S. federal, state, local and foreign laws, rules and regulations relating to employee safety and health which, among other things, establish exposure limitation for cotton dust, formaldehyde, asbestos and noise, and which regulate chemical, physical and ergonomic hazards in the workplace. WPI estimated its environmental accruals to be $1 million at both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Other Matters Mr. Icahn, through certain affiliates, owns 100% of Icahn Enterprises GP and approximately 92.6% of our outstanding depositary units as of each of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Applicable pension and tax laws make each member of a “controlled group” of entities, generally defined as entities in which there is at least an 80% common ownership interest, jointly and severally liable for certain pension plan obligations of any member of the controlled group. These pension obligations include ongoing contributions to fund the plan, as well as liability for any unfunded liabilities that may exist at the time the plan is terminated. In addition, the failure to pay these pension obligations when due may result in the creation of liens in favor of the pension plan or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") against the assets of each member of the controlled group. As a result of the more than 80% ownership interest in us by Mr. Icahn’s affiliates, we and our subsidiaries are subject to the pension liabilities of all entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. One such entity, ACF, is the sponsor of several pension plans. All the minimum funding requirements of the Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, for these plans have been met as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. If the plans were voluntarily terminated, they would be underfunded by approximately $114 million and $103 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. These results are based on the most recent information provided by the plans’ actuaries. These liabilities could increase or decrease, depending on a number of factors, including future changes in benefits, investment returns, and the assumptions used to calculate the liability. As members of the controlled group, we would be liable for any failure of ACF to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon a termination of the ACF pension plans. In addition, other entities now or in the future within the controlled group in which we are included may have pension plan obligations that are, or may become, underfunded and we would be liable for any failure of such entities to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon termination of such plans. The current underfunded status of the ACF pension plans requires ACF to notify the PBGC of certain “reportable events,” such as if we cease to be a member of the ACF controlled group, or if we make certain extraordinary dividends or stock redemptions. The obligation to report could cause us to seek to delay or reconsider the occurrence of such reportable events. Starfire Holding Corporation ("Starfire") which is 100% owned by Mr. Icahn, has undertaken to indemnify us and our subsidiaries from losses resulting from any imposition of certain pension funding or termination liabilities that may be imposed on us and our subsidiaries or our assets as a result of being a member of the Icahn controlled group. The Starfire indemnity (which does not extend to pension liabilities of our subsidiaries that would be imposed on us as a result of our interest in these subsidiaries and not as a result of Mr. Icahn and his affiliates holding more than an 80% ownership interest in us) provides, among other things, that so long as such contingent liabilities exist and could be imposed on us, Starfire will not make any distributions to its stockholders that would reduce its net worth to below $250 million. Nonetheless, Starfire may not be able to fund its indemnification obligations to us.

Commitments and Contingencies.

Investment Management

Exit Facility

In connection with Tropicana's completion of the Restructuring Transactions (see Note 2, “Operating Units-Gaming”), Tropicana entered into the Exit Facility, as amended, which consists of a (i) $130 million Term Loan Facility issued at a discount of 7%, which was funded on March 8, 2010, the Effective Date and (ii) $20 million Revolving Facility. Each of the Investment Funds was a lender under the Exit Facility and, in the aggregate, held over 50% of the loans under the Term Loan Facility and was obligated to provide 100% of any amounts borrowed by Tropicana under the Revolving Facility. As described in Note 2, "Operating Units-Gaming," on June 30, 2011, the Investment Funds made a distribution-in-kind of their investment in the Exit Facility to us and as a result we are now the lenders under the Exit Facility. As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, Tropicana has not borrowed any amounts under the Revolving Facility.

Litigation

On October 28, 2010, Lions Gate filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Carl Icahn, Brett Icahn, Icahn Enterprises L.P., Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P., Icahn Enterprises G.P, certain of our Investment Management entities (collectively, the “Icahn Group”) and others alleging violations of the Exchange Act and state tort law in connection with certain disclosures made during tender offers by the Icahn Group to acquire Lions Gate stock relating to the Icahn Group's acquisition of the debt of Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer, Inc., and alleging that the Icahn Group violated the tender offer Best Price Rule (promulgated under the rules and regulations of the SEC) by providing additional consideration to Mark Cuban in exchange for the tender of his Lions Gate shares that was not provided to other tendering shareholders. The complaint sought injunctive relief compelling the Icahn Group to make corrective disclosures and to offer the same consideration it offered to Mark Cuban to Lions Gate's other shareholders, and money damages. Lions Gate amended its complaint on December 3, 2010 to add certain supplemental factual allegations. The Icahn Group moved to dismiss the amended complaint on December 17, 2010. On March 23, 2011, the court granted the Icahn Group's motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all of Lions Gate's claims except its Best Price Rule claim. On September 15, 2011, all pending litigation with Lions Gate was dismissed with prejudice.

Automotive

Environmental Matters

Federal-Mogul is a defendant in lawsuits filed, or the recipient of administrative orders issued or demand letters received, in various jurisdictions pursuant to the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) or other similar national, provincial or state environmental remedial laws. These laws provide that responsible parties may be liable to pay for remediating contamination resulting from hazardous substances that were discharged into the environment by them, by prior owners or occupants of property they currently own or operate, or by others to whom they sent such substances for treatment or other disposition at third party locations. Federal-Mogul has been notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, other national environmental agencies, and various provincial and state agencies that it may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) under such laws for the cost of remediating hazardous substances pursuant to CERCLA and other national and state or provincial environmental laws. PRP designation often results in the funding of site investigations and subsequent remedial activities.

Many of the sites that are likely to be the costliest to remediate are often current or former commercial waste disposal facilities to which numerous companies sent wastes. Despite the potential joint and several liability which might be imposed on Federal-Mogul under CERCLA and some of the other laws pertaining to these sites, its share of the total waste sent to these sites has generally been small. Federal-Mogul believes its exposure for liability at these sites is limited.

Federal-Mogul has also identified certain other present and former properties at which it may be responsible for cleaning up or addressing environmental contamination, in some cases as a result of contractual commitments and/or federal or state environmental laws. Federal-Mogul is actively seeking to resolve these actual and potential statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations. Although difficult to quantify based on the complexity of the issues, Federal-Mogul has accrued amounts corresponding to its best estimate of the costs associated with such regulatory and contractual obligations on the basis of available information from site investigations and best professional judgment of consultants.

Total environmental liabilities, determined on an undiscounted basis, were $17 million and $19 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, and are included in accrued expenses and other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets.

Federal-Mogul believes that recorded environmental liabilities will be adequate to cover its estimated liability for its exposure in respect to such matters. In the event that such liabilities were to significantly exceed the amounts recorded by Federal-Mogul, our Automotive segment's results of operations could be materially affected. At September 30, 2011, Federal-Mogul estimates reasonably possible material additional losses, above and beyond its best estimate of required remediation costs as recorded, to approximate $44 million.

Asset Retirement Obligations

Federal-Mogul has identified sites with contractual obligations and several sites that are closed or expected to be closed and sold. In connection with these sites, Federal-Mogul has accrued $25 million for each of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 for ARO, primarily related to anticipated costs of removing hazardous building materials, and has considered impairment issues that may result from capitalization of these ARO amounts.

Federal-Mogul has conditional asset retirement obligations ("CARO"), primarily related to removal costs of hazardous materials in buildings, for which it believes reasonable cost estimates cannot be made at this time because it does not believe it has a reasonable basis to assign probabilities to a range of potential settlement dates for these retirement obligations. Accordingly, Federal-Mogul is currently unable to determine amounts to accrue for CARO at such sites.

Gaming

Trademark Litigation

Certain parties affiliated with the new owners of the Tropicana Las Vegas ("Tropicana LV") filed a declaratory judgment action in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada ("Nevada State Court"), on July 20, 2009, against Aztar Corporation ("Aztar") and Tropicana Entertainment, LLC ("TE") originally seeking a declaratory judgment that Tropicana LV had the right to operate a hotel and casino under the name "Tropicana" without any interference by or payment to Aztar or TE (together, the "Defendants"). The plaintiffs' complaint sought no damages or injunctive relief. On August 10, 2009, Defendants removed the action to the District of Nevada and filed an answer and counterclaim asserting the plaintiffs' use of "Tropicana" infringes upon Defendants' rights in three federally registered trademarks. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to Nevada State Court, which was granted on January 21, 2010.

During the course of proceedings, the plaintiffs and Defendants each filed a motion for summary judgment claiming ownership of the "Tropicana" trademark. Both motions were denied, although the Nevada State Court preliminarily found that the plaintiffs might have an unexercised reversionary ownership interest in the “Tropicana” trademark as a result of an agreement that is 30 years old. Nonetheless, because any exercise of this purported reversionary interest by Tropicana LV could potentially deprive the Company, as successor to TE, of its asserted ownership of the Tropicana trademark, the Defendants filed a motion in the Chapter 11 Cases for an order rejecting the 1980 trade name agreement. In addition, the Company, together with its subsidiary, New Tropicana Holdings, Inc. ("New Tropicana"), and certain affiliates of Icahn Capital, as secured lenders to the Company, filed a complaint in the Chapter 11 Cases against the plaintiffs (the “Bankruptcy Court action”), seeking a declaration that, consistent with prior, uncontested orders of the Bankruptcy Court, New Tropicana is the owner of the "Tropicana" trademark, the Exit Facility lenders have a perfected security interest in that property, and the Nevada State Court action, to the extent it sought to assert ownership over the trademark or question the validity of the security interest, violated the automatic stay. The complaint also demanded an injunction against any further efforts by the plaintiffs to re-litigate the ownership issue, and sought other remedies on behalf of the Exit Facility lenders.

On August 9, 2011 all parties to the Nevada State Court action and the Bankruptcy Court action entered into a global Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) concluding both actions and governing the respective rights of the parties to the “Tropicana” trademark. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, which became effective on September 28, 2011, the plaintiffs, subject to certain advertising exceptions and other terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, have perpetual exclusive rights to use the names, trademarks and/or service marks (the “Marks”) TROPICANA LAS VEGAS (or TROP LAS VEGAS) and TROPICANA LV (or TROP LV) (the “TLV Marks,” as defined in the Settlement Agreement) in conjunction with its services (“Services,” as defined in the Settlement Agreement) in the City of Las Vegas, Nevada and within a 50-mile radius of the front entrance of the Tropicana Las Vegas Hotel and Casino located at 3801 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, Nevada (the “TLV Territory”) along with certain rights to use the TLV Marks on the internet without geographical limitation (“Internet Uses,” as defined in the Settlement Agreement) and to register the TLV Marks as domain names. Defendants, subject to certain advertising exceptions and other terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, have perpetual exclusive worldwide rights to use the present and future formulated Marks TROPICANA and TROP coupled with either an identifier of its Services or an accurate geographic identifier of the location of a Tropicana Entertainment property (other than LAS VEGAS or the name of any city within the TLV Territory) (the “TE Marks”) outside of the TLV Territory along with Internet Uses rights and domain name registration rights for the TE Marks.

Aztar v. Marsh

Aztar filed a broker malpractice and breach of contract action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, Law Division (the “Court”) on August 12, 2010, against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Marsh, Inc., Marsh USA, Inc. and various fictitious Marsh entities (together, the "Marsh Defendants"). The claim seeks $100 million or more in compensatory damages against the Marsh Defendants, Aztar's risk management and insurance brokers at the time of a 2002 expansion of Tropicana AC by Aztar, including, but not limited to, lost profits, expenses arising from the interruption of operations, attorneys' fees, loss of the use of the insurance proceeds at issue, and litigation expenses resulting from the Marsh Defendants' failure to secure for Aztar business interruption and property damage coverage covering losses sustained by Aztar from the collapse of a parking garage that occurred at Tropicana AC on October 30, 2003.

The Marsh Defendants filed an answer on October 20, 2010 denying the material allegations of the complaint and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens in December 2010, which motion was denied by the Court on April 12, 2011. On August 18, 2011 the Marsh Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the Court should apply the Arizona Statue of Limitations to the action. Aztar filed an objection to the Marsh Defendants' motion on September 23, 2011 arguing, inter alia, that the New Jersey Statute of Limitations applies to the action. The Marsh Defendants filed its Reply on October 3, 2011 and the motion is currently pending before the Court. Discovery is also proceeding, and trial is not expected to take place until 2012, at the earliest. Any recovery obtained by Aztar in this action will be recoverable by the Company as the current owner of Tropicana AC.

Railcar

Environmental Matters

ARI is subject to comprehensive federal, state, local and international environmental laws and regulations relating to the release or discharge of materials into the environment, the management, use, processing, handling, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes, or otherwise relating to the protection of human health and the environment. These laws and regulations not only expose ARI to liability for the environmental condition of its current or formerly owned or operated facilities, and its own negligent acts, but also may expose ARI to liability for the conduct of others or for ARI's actions that were in compliance with all applicable laws at the time these actions were taken. In addition, these laws may require significant expenditures to achieve compliance, and are frequently modified or revised to impose new obligations. Civil and criminal fines and penalties and other sanctions may be imposed for non-compliance with these environmental laws and regulations. ARI's operations that involve hazardous materials also raise potential risks of liability under common law. Management believes that there are no current environmental issues identified that would have a material adverse effect on ARI. Certain real property ARI acquired from ACF in 1994 has been involved in investigation and remediation activities to address contamination. Substantially all of the issues identified relate to the use of this property prior to its transfer to ARI by ACF and for which ACF has retained liability for environmental contamination that may have existed at the time of transfer to ARI. ACF has also agreed to indemnify ARI for any cost that might be incurred with those existing issues. As of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, ARI does not believe it will incur material costs in connection with any investigation or remediation activities relating to these properties, but it cannot assure that this will be the case. If ACF fails to honor its obligations to ARI, ARI could be responsible for the cost of such remediation. ARI believes that its operations and facilities are in substantial compliance with applicable laws and regulations and that any noncompliance is not likely to have a material adverse effect on its operations or financial condition.

Other Matters

On December 16, 2010, a complaint was filed by Steve Garvin, Deloris Garvin, and Garvin Enterprise, Inc. against ARI’s subsidiaries Southwest Steel I, LLC, Southwest Steel II, LLC and Southwest Steel III, LLC, d/b/a Southwest Steel Casting Co., in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 295th Judicial District. On July 25, 2011, the complaint was amended to include ARI as a party to the litigation. The plaintiffs allege that ARI improperly used their former employees to source components from Chinese suppliers in contravention of contractual relationships among the parties and in a manner that compromised the plaintiffs’ relationships with the Chinese suppliers. The plaintiffs seek direct, consequential and other damages for breach of contract, tortious interference with an existing contract, trade secret misappropriation, civil conspiracy, civil theft, conversion and unfair competition. The plaintiffs also seek declaratory judgment with respect to the parties’ rights under certain agreements. The lawsuit is in the discovery stage and it is not currently possible to estimate the amount of the loss, if any, that could result from this case.

One of ARI's joint ventures entered into a credit agreement in December 2007. Effective August 5, 2009, ARI and the other initial joint venture partner acquired this loan from the lenders party thereto, with each party acquiring a 50% interest in the loan. The total commitment under the term loan is $60 million with an additional $10 million commitment under the revolving loan. ARI is responsible to fund 50% of the loan commitments. The balance outstanding on these loans, due to ARI, was $37 million of principal and accrued interest as of September 30, 2011. ARI's share of the remaining commitment on these loans was $4 million as of September 30, 2011.

In March 2011, ARI entered into an agreement to purchase certain railcar parts during fiscal 2011 for current railcar orders with a remaining commitment of $21 million as of September 30, 2011.

Metals

Environmental Matters

PSC Metals has been designated as a PRP under U.S. federal and state superfund laws with respect to certain sites with which PSC Metals may have had a direct or indirect involvement. It is alleged that PSC Metals and its subsidiaries or their predecessors transported waste to the sites, disposed of waste at the sites or operated the sites in question. Most recently, PSC Metals has been named as a defendant in an environmental civil action brought by the USEPA, alleging that PSC Metals and one of its subsidiaries, along with several other unrelated defendants, are liable for the recovery of response costs incurred by the USEPA at a superfund site in New York. Management believes that PSC Metals and its subsidiary have valid defenses to all claims.

PSC Metals has reviewed the nature and extent of the allegations, the number, connection and financial ability of other named and unnamed PRPs and the nature and estimated cost of the likely remedy in all pending cases. Based on reviewing the nature and extent of the allegations, PSC Metals has estimated its liability to remediate these sites to be immaterial at each of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. If it is determined that PSC Metals has liability to remediate those sites and that more expensive remediation approaches are required in the future, PSC Metals could incur additional obligations, which could be material.

Certain of PSC Metals' facilities are environmentally impaired in part as a result of operating practices at the sites prior to their acquisition by PSC Metals and as a result of PSC Metals' operations. PSC Metals has established procedures to periodically evaluate these sites, giving consideration to the nature and extent of the contamination. PSC Metals has provided for the remediation of these sites based upon management's judgment and prior experience. PSC Metals has estimated the liability to remediate these sites to be $29 million and $28 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Management believes, based on past experience, that the vast majority of these environmental liabilities and costs will be assessed and paid over an extended period of time. PSC Metals believes that it will be able to fund such costs in the ordinary course of business.

Estimates of PSC Metals' liability for remediation of a particular site and the method and ultimate cost of remediation require a number of assumptions that are inherently difficult to make, and the ultimate outcome may be materially different from current estimates. Moreover, because PSC Metals has disposed of waste materials at numerous third-party disposal facilities, it is possible that PSC Metals will be identified as a PRP at additional sites. The impact of such future events cannot be estimated at the current time.

The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has alleged that PSC Metals' scrap processing facility located in Cleveland, Ohio has violated the requirements of Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, 42 USC Section 761, which requires scrap processors to either recover refrigerants from appliances in accordance with the procedures described in the applicable federal regulations or verify through certifications that refrigerants have previously been evacuated. PSC Metals has entered into a consent decree with the EPA that resolves all claims against it. The consent decree will require PSC Metals to pay a civil penalty of $199,000 and includes injunctive relief that will require it to offer refrigerant extraction services at 11 of its scrap processing facilities for the next four years. PSC Metals anticipates the settlement will become final sometime early in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011. PSC Metals estimates that the cost associated with the required injunctive relief will range from $0.8 million to $1.7 million, exclusive of the civil penalty referenced above.

Home Fashion

Litigation

We were defendants in two lawsuits, one in the federal courts in New York and one in the Delaware state courts, challenging, among other matters, the status of our ownership interests in the common and preferred stock of WPI (which was, at that time, a Delaware corporation). We (through Aretex LLC) had acquired ownership of a majority of the WPI common stock through a July 2005 Sale Order entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Under that Sale Order, WPI acquired substantially all of the assets of WestPoint Stevens, Inc. The losing bidders at the Bankruptcy Court auction that led to the Sale Order challenged the Sale Order. In November 2005, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York modified portions of the Sale Order in a manner that could have reduced our ownership of WPI stock below 50%. In its March 26, 2010 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that we are entitled to own a majority of WPI's common stock, and thus have control of WPI. The Second Circuit ordered the Bankruptcy Court's Sale Order reinstated, to ensure that our percentage ownership of the common stock will be at least 50.5%. The Second Circuit ordered the District Court to remand the matter back to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with its ruling. On remand, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order on December 6, 2010 implementing the Second Circuit's decision. On September 23, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered a stipulation dismissing the bankruptcy case, including an adversary proceeding against Aretex LLC and others, and allowing certain funds to be distributed to the first lien lenders.

There was also a proceeding in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the same “losing bidders” who are parties to the case decided by the Second Circuit. After the ruling by the Second Circuit, the plaintiffs filed a modified third amended complaint in the Delaware case. In that complaint, the plaintiffs pled claims for breach of fiduciary duty (and aiding and abetting such alleged breach) against us, and against Icahn Enterprises Holdings, Carl C. Icahn and others, based on WPI's not having proceeded with a registration statement. The plaintiffs also asserted a contractual claim against WPI relating to the registration statement alleging that, because WPI did not proceed with the registration statement, the plaintiffs were unable to sell their securities in WPI, and sought to recover the diminution in the value of those securities. The plaintiffs also asserted a claim for unjust enrichment against all defendants, including us, WPI, Icahn Enterprises Holdings, Carl C. Icahn and others, based on claims that defendants were beneficiaries of a stay order allegedly improperly entered by the Bankruptcy Court. On November 3, 2010, the Chancery Court dismissed the modified third amended complaint in its entirety. The plaintiffs appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court. On August 3, 2011, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Chancery Court dismissing the modified third amended complaint, and thus dismissing the case, in its entirety.

Environmental Matters

WPI is subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations governing, among other things, the discharge, storage, handling and disposal of a variety of hazardous and nonhazardous substances and wastes used in or resulting from its operations and potential remediation obligations. WPI's operations are also governed by U.S. federal, state, local and foreign laws, rules and regulations relating to employee safety and health which, among other things, establish exposure limitation for cotton dust, formaldehyde, asbestos and noise, and which regulate chemical, physical and ergonomic hazards in the workplace. WPI estimated its environmental accruals to be $1 million at both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Other Matters

Mr. Icahn, through certain affiliates, owns 100% of Icahn Enterprises GP and approximately 92.6% of our outstanding depositary units as of each of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Applicable pension and tax laws make each member of a “controlled group” of entities, generally defined as entities in which there is at least an 80% common ownership interest, jointly and severally liable for certain pension plan obligations of any member of the controlled group. These pension obligations include ongoing contributions to fund the plan, as well as liability for any unfunded liabilities that may exist at the time the plan is terminated. In addition, the failure to pay these pension obligations when due may result in the creation of liens in favor of the pension plan or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") against the assets of each member of the controlled group.

As a result of the more than 80% ownership interest in us by Mr. Icahn’s affiliates, we and our subsidiaries are subject to the pension liabilities of all entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. One such entity, ACF, is the sponsor of several pension plans. All the minimum funding requirements of the Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, for these plans have been met as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. If the plans were voluntarily terminated, they would be underfunded by approximately $114 million and $103 million as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. These results are based on the most recent information provided by the plans’ actuaries. These liabilities could increase or decrease, depending on a number of factors, including future changes in benefits, investment returns, and the assumptions used to calculate the liability. As members of the controlled group, we would be liable for any failure of ACF to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon a termination of the ACF pension plans. In addition, other entities now or in the future within the controlled group in which we are included may have pension plan obligations that are, or may become, underfunded and we would be liable for any failure of such entities to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon termination of such plans.

The current underfunded status of the ACF pension plans requires ACF to notify the PBGC of certain “reportable events,” such as if we cease to be a member of the ACF controlled group, or if we make certain extraordinary dividends or stock redemptions. The obligation to report could cause us to seek to delay or reconsider the occurrence of such reportable events.

Starfire Holding Corporation ("Starfire") which is 100% owned by Mr. Icahn, has undertaken to indemnify us and our subsidiaries from losses resulting from any imposition of certain pension funding or termination liabilities that may be imposed on us and our subsidiaries or our assets as a result of being a member of the Icahn controlled group. The Starfire indemnity (which does not extend to pension liabilities of our subsidiaries that would be imposed on us as a result of our interest in these subsidiaries and not as a result of Mr. Icahn and his affiliates holding more than an 80% ownership interest in us) provides, among other things, that so long as such contingent liabilities exist and could be imposed on us, Starfire will not make any distributions to its stockholders that would reduce its net worth to below $250 million. Nonetheless, Starfire may not be able to fund its indemnification obligations to us.