XML 34 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies. Environmental Matters Due to the nature of our business, certain of our subsidiaries' operations are subject to numerous existing and proposed laws and governmental regulations designed to protect the environment, particularly regarding plant wastes and emissions and solid waste disposal. Our consolidated environmental liabilities were $49 million and $50 million as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, primarily within our Automotive, Energy and Metals segments and which are included in accrued expenses and other liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. We do not believe that environmental matters will have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition. Automotive 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 EPA, 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 the professional judgment of consultants. Our Automotive segment's total environmental liabilities, determined on an undiscounted basis, were $15 million and $16 million as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. 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, 2017, Federal-Mogul estimates reasonably possible material additional losses, above and beyond its best estimate of required remediation costs as recorded, to approximate $40 million. Energy The petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses are subject to various stringent federal, state, and local Environmental Health and Safety ("EHS") rules and regulations. Liabilities related to EHS matters are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Estimates of these costs are based upon currently available facts, existing technology, site-specific costs, and currently enacted laws and regulations. In reporting EHS liabilities, no offset is made for potential recoveries. Except as otherwise described below, there have been no new developments or material changes to the environmental accruals or expected capital expenditures related to compliance with the environmental matters from those disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016. CVR Energy believes the petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses are in material compliance with existing EHS rules and regulations. There can be no assurance that the EHS matters described or referenced herein or other EHS matters which may develop in the future will not have a material adverse effect on CVR Energy's business, financial condition or results of operations. As of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, our Energy segment had environmental accruals of $4 million and $5 million, respectively. CVR Energy's management periodically reviews and, as appropriate, revises its environmental accruals. Based on current information and regulatory requirements, CVR Energy's management believes that the accruals established for environmental expenditures are adequate. Environmental expenditures are capitalized when such expenditures are expected to result in future economic benefits. Capital expenditures incurred for environmental compliance and efficiency of the operations were $5 million and $7 million for the three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $12 million and $13 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Metals 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. In addition, one of PSC Metals' Knoxville locations was the subject of investigations by the State of Tennessee under the federal Superfund law. These investigations were performed by the State of Tennessee pursuant to a contract with the EPA. PSC Metals is exploring a potential settlement of the matter. Currently, PSC Metals cannot assess the impact of any cost or liability associated with these investigations at this location. With respect to all other matters in which PSC Metals has been designated as a PRP under U.S. federal and state superfund laws, 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. Based on reviewing the nature and extent of the allegations, PSC Metals has estimated its liability to remediate these other sites to be immaterial as of both September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016. 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 to its operations. In November and December of 2011, PSC Metals received three notices of violation ("NOV") from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”) for hazardous waste and water violations related to its Festus, Missouri location. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement with MDNR that resolves these NOVs. Currently, PSC Metals believes that it has established adequate reserves for the cost of this settlement. In addition, PSC Metals believes that it has a claim for indemnification against the prior owner of the facility associated with the above-referenced notices of violation. MDNR and PSC Metals, as part of the resolution of MDNR's NOVs, have undertaken sampling for lead at residences near PSC Metals' Festus yard. Approximately 67 residences were sampled and tested, and of those, approximately 15 tested above residential standards for lead contamination. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement agreement with MDNR which resolves MDNR’s claims and required limited soil remediation at the 15 residences. PSC Metals has complied with the terms of the settlement agreement and expects its obligations under the settlement agreement to terminate in the near future. PSC Metals believes that it has adequately reserved for the cost of compliance with the settlement agreement. Additionally, PSC Metals believes that liability for off-site contamination was retained by the prior owner of the Festus yard and accordingly, it would have a claim for indemnification against the prior owner. 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 its management's judgment and prior experience. PSC Metals has estimated the liability to remediate these sites to be $28 million and $28 million at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. PSC Metals 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. Renewable Fuel Standards CVR Refining is subject to the Renewable Fuel Standard which requires refiners to either blend "renewable fuels" with their transportation fuels or purchase renewable fuel credits, known as renewable identification numbers (“RINs”), in lieu of blending, by March 31, 2018 or otherwise be subject to penalties. On December 12, 2016, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") published in the Federal Register a final rule establishing the renewable fuel volume mandates for 2017, and the biomass-based diesel mandate for 2018. On July 21, 2017, the EPA published in the Federal Register its proposed rule establishing the renewable fuel volume mandates for 2018, and the biomass-based diesel mandate for 2019. The EPA is required by the Clean Air Act to publish the final rule for 2018 by November 30, 2017. RINs expense was $64 million and $58 million for three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $164 million and $152 million for nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. RINs expense includes the impact of recognizing the petroleum business' uncommitted biofuel blending obligation at fair value based on market prices at each reporting date. As of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the petroleum business' biofuel blending obligation was $185 million and $186 million, respectively, which is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. The petroleum business' uncommitted biofuel blending obligation recognized at fair value as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 was $127 million and $186 million, respectively. Litigation From time to time, we and our subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. We do not believe that such normal routine litigation will have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Automotive On March 3, 2017, certain purported former stockholders of Federal-Mogul Holdings Corporation filed a petition in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking an appraisal of the value of common stock they claim to have held at the time of the January 23, 2017 merger of IEH FM Holdings, LLC into Federal-Mogul Holdings Corporation. IEH FM Holdings, LLC was a wholly owned subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises. Federal-Mogul Holdings LLC filed an answer to the petition on March 28, 2017. A second petition for appraisal was filed by purported former stockholders of Federal-Mogul Holdings Corporation on May 1, 2017. The two cases were consolidated on May 10, 2017, captioned In re Appraisal of Federal-Mogul Holdings LLC, C.A. No. 2017-0158-AGB. Discovery is ongoing and a trial date has not yet been set. Federal-Mogul believes that it has a meritorious defense and intends to vigorously defend the matter. On April 25, 2014, a group of plaintiffs brought an action against Federal-Mogul Products, Inc. ("FM Products"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Federal-Mogul, alleging injuries and damages associated with the discharge of chlorinated hydrocarbons by the former owner of a facility located in Kentucky. Since 1998, when FM Products acquired the facility, it has been cooperating with the applicable regulatory agencies on remediating the prior discharges pursuant to an order entered into by the facility’s former owner. Federal-Mogul does not currently believe the outcome of this litigation will have a material impact on its financial statements. On September 29, 2016, September 30, 2016, October 12, 2016 and October 19, 2016, respectively, four putative class actions, captioned Skybo v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12790, Lemanchek v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12791, Raul v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12821 and Mercado v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12837, were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Board of Directors of Federal-Mogul (the "FM Board") and Icahn Enterprises, Icahn Enterprises Holdings, certain of their affiliates and Icahn Enterprises' Board of Directors (the "Icahn Defendants"), and, in the case of Raul, Federal-Mogul. The complaints allege that, among other things, the FM Board breached its fiduciary duties by approving the proposed Merger Agreement, that the Icahn Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the minority stockholders of Federal-Mogul and/or aided and abetted the FM Board’s breaches of its fiduciary duties, as well as alleging certain material misstatements and omissions in the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Federal-Mogul (the "Schedule 14D-9"). The complaints allege that, among other things, the then-Offer Price was inadequate and, together with that the Merger Agreement, was the result of a flawed and unfair sales process and conflicts of interest of the FM Board and the special committee of independent directors of Federal-Mogul (the "Special Committee"), alleging that the Special Committee and Federal-Mogul’s management lacked independence from the Icahn Defendants. In addition, the complaints allege that the Merger Agreement contains certain allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions, including a no-solicitation provision, an information rights provision and a matching rights provision. Among other things, the complaints sought to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, as well as award costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The Raul and Mercado complaints further seek to rescind the transaction or award rescissory damages, or (in the case of Raul) award a quasi-appraisal remedy in the event that the transaction was consummated, as well as award money damages. On October 28, 2016, all four actions were consolidated under the caption In re Federal-Mogul Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12790-CB (the "Delaware Action"). On March 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint that does not name Federal-Mogul as a defendant. Among other things, the consolidated amended complaint also adds allegations regarding the commencement and extension of the Offer, the increase in the Offer price, the closing of the transaction, Federal-Mogul's subsequent performance and public statements, Mr. Ninivaggi’s post-merger employment with Icahn Enterprises and the independence of the chairman of the Special Committee. The Icahn Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint and discovery was stayed pending determination of that motion. In lieu of proceeding with the October 12, 2017 hearing on the Icahn Defendants' motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action dismissed the Delaware Action, with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs. On October 5, 2016, a putative class action captioned Sanders v. Federal-Mogul Holdings Corporation et al., C.A. No. 16-155387 was filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County of the State of Michigan against Federal-Mogul, the FM Board and the Icahn Defendants (the "Michigan Action"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the FM Board breached its fiduciary duties and that Federal-Mogul and the Icahn Defendants aided and abetted the FM Board’s breaches of its fiduciary duties, as well as alleging certain material misstatements and omissions in the Schedule 14D-9. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the then-Offer Price was unfair and the result of an unfair sales process that included conflicts of interest. In addition, the complaint alleges that the Merger Agreement contains certain allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions, including a no-solicitation provision, an information rights provision and a matching rights provision. Among other things, the complaint sought to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, or, in the event that the transactions were consummated, rescind the transactions or award rescissory damages, as well as award money damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees. On March 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, dropped Federal-Mogul as a defendant. The amended complaint also: named certain additional Icahn-affiliated individuals and entities as defendants; deleted various allegations relating to process and purported disclosure deficiencies; added allegations regarding the commencement and extension of the Offer, the increase in the Offer price, the closing of the transaction, Federal-Mogul's subsequent performance and public statements, Mr. Ninivaggi’s post-merger employment with Icahn Enterprises, and the independence of certain directors; and eliminated the request for injunctive relief given the consummation of the transaction. On April 4, 2017, the Court entered a stipulated order staying the Michigan Action pending final determination of the Delaware Action. On October 16, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Michigan Action dismissed the Michigan Action, with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs. Other Matters FRA Directive On September 30, 2016, the Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") issued Railworthiness Directive ("RWD") No. 2016-01 (the "Original Directive"). The Original Directive addressed, among other things, certain welding practices in one weld area in specified DOT 111 tank railcars manufactured between 2009 and 2015 by ARI and ACF. Our Railcar segment met and corresponded with the FRA following the issuance of the Original Directive to express its concerns with the Original Directive and its impact on our Railcar segment, as well as the industry as a whole. On November 18, 2016 (the "Issuance Date"), the FRA issued RWD No. 2016-01 [Revised] (the "Revised Directive"). The Revised Directive changes and supersedes the Original Directive in several ways. The Revised Directive requires owners to identify their subject tank railcars and then from that population identify the 15% of subject tank railcars currently in hazardous materials service with the highest mileage in each tank car owner’s fleet. Visual inspection of each of the subject tank railcars is required by the car operator prior to putting any railcar into service. Owners must ensure appropriate inspection, testing and repairs, if needed, within twelve months of the Issuance Date for the 15% of their subject tank railcars identified to be in hazardous materials service with the highest mileage. The FRA reserved the right to impose additional test and inspection requirements for the remaining tank railcars subject to the Revised Directive. Although the Revised Directive addressed some of our Railcar segment's concerns and clarifies certain requirements of the Original Directive, our Railcar segment identified significant issues with the Revised Directive. As a result, in December 2016, our Railcar segment sought judicial review of and relief from the Revised Directive by filing a petition for review against the FRA in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On August 17, 2017, our Railcar segment entered into a settlement agreement with the FRA, which covered the subject railcars owned by our Railcar segment. This agreement, among other things, extends the deadline for our Railcar segment to complete the inspection, testing and repairs, if needed, for the 15% identified railcars to December 31, 2017. Adding clarity regarding certain unknown requirements referenced in the Revised Directive, under the settlement agreement, our Railcar segment is required to inspect, test, and if necessary repair the remaining 85% subject tank railcars at the next tank railcar qualification, scheduled routine or regular maintenance, shopping or repair event, but no later than December 31, 2025. However, the settlement agreement permits our Railcar segment to: (i) if the FRA does not impose a similar requirement by July 31, 2018 on other owners’ railcars subject to the Revised Directive, suspend compliance with this requirement until such time as the FRA imposes requirements on all 85% railcars subject to the Revised Directive, and (ii) elect to be governed by any different requirements later imposed by the FRA on other owners’ railcars subject to the Revised Directive. In addition, the settlement agreement also provides that railcars owned by our Railcar segment are no longer required to have a surface inspection performed when the railcars are being inspected pursuant to the Revised Directive. The description above includes a summary of the terms of the settlement agreement. Finally, as part of the settlement agreement, our Railcar segment dismissed its lawsuit against the FRA. It also provides that all other tank railcars subject to the Revised Directive must be inspected, tested, and if necessary repaired at the earlier of the next qualification, scheduled maintenance, shopping or repair event, or December 31, 2025. Additionally, the settlement agreement provides flexibility if the FRA imposes, or fails to impose, requirements on the other owners of the tank railcars subject to the Revised Directive, and it modifies and clarifies the inspection protocol. Finally, pursuant to the settlement agreement, our Railcar segment has dismissed its petition for review of the Revised Directive. Our Railcar segment has evaluated its potential exposure related to the Revised Directive and has a loss contingency reserve remaining of $13 million, as of September 30, 2017, to cover its probable and estimable liabilities with respect to our Railcar segment's response to the Revised Directive. The loss contingency amount takes into account information available as of September 30, 2017 and our Railcar segment's contractual obligations in its capacity as both a manufacturer and owner of railcars subject to the Revised Directive. This amount is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. This amount will continue to be evaluated as our Railcar segment's and its customers' compliance with the Revised Directive and the settlement agreement progress. Actual results could differ from this estimate. It is reasonably possible that a loss exists in excess of the amount accrued by our Railcar segment. However, the amount of potential costs and expenses expected to be incurred for compliance with the Revised Directive in excess of the loss contingency reserve of $13 million cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Pension Obligations Mr. Icahn, through certain affiliates, owns 100% of Icahn Enterprises GP and approximately 90.8% of Icahn Enterprises' outstanding depositary units as of September 30, 2017. 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 entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. Therefore, as a result of our ownership of more than 80% in certain of our subsidiaries, 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%. ACF and Federal-Mogul, are the sponsors of several pension plans. All the minimum funding requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, 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, 2017 and December 31, 2016. If the plans were voluntarily terminated, they would be underfunded by approximately $452 million and $613 million as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, 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 and Federal-Mogul to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon a termination of the pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul. 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 pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul requires them to notify the PBGC of certain “reportable events,” such as if we cease to be a member of the ACF and Federal-Mogul 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 99.4% 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, and as such would not extend to the unfunded pension termination liability for Federal-Mogul) 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.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration