XML 46 R33.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.7.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Unconditional Purchase Obligations As of December 31, 2016, purchase commitments for capital expenditures were $7.4 million, all of which is obligated within the next year. In Australia, the Company has generally secured the ability to transport coal through rail contracts and ownership interests in five east coast coal export terminals that are primarily funded through take-or-pay arrangements with terms ranging up to 26 years. In the U.S., the Company has entered into certain long-term coal export terminal agreements to secure export capacity through the Gulf Coast. As of December 31, 2016, these Australian and U.S. commitments under take-or-pay arrangements totaled $1.6 billion, of which approximately $210 million is obligated within the next year. Federal Coal Leases In the second quarter of 2012, the Company was named by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as the winning bidder for control of approximately 1.1 billion tons of federal coal reserves adjacent to its North Antelope Rochelle Mine in the Southern Powder River Basin of Wyoming, with a weighted average bid price of approximately $1.10 per mineable ton. Consequently, the Company made aggregate payments of $247.9 million during each of the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 pursuant to the two associated federal coal leases. The payments for these leases are now complete. In July 2011, the Company was named by the BLM as the winning bidder for control of approximately 220 million tons of federal coal reserves adjacent to its Caballo Mine in the Powder River Basin at a bid price of $0.95 per mineable ton, with payments of $42.1 million due annually in each of the years from 2011 through 2015 pursuant to the associated federal coal lease (the Belle Ayr North Lease). Similarly, in September 2011, a subsidiary of Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. (Alpha) was named by the BLM as the winning bidder for control of approximately 130 million tons of federal coal reserves in the Powder River Basin at a bid price of $1.10 per mineable ton, with contractual payments of $28.6 million due annually in each of the years from 2011 through 2015 under the associated federal coal lease (the Caballo West Lease). In July 2012, the Company and Alpha executed a lease exchange agreement with the BLM whereby the Company agreed to sell, assign and transfer its interest in the Belle Ayr North Lease in exchange for (1) Alpha's interest in the Caballo West Lease, (2) reimbursement of $13.5 million for the difference in the related federal coal lease payments made by each party in 2011 and (3) five annual true up payments of $3.9 million for the excess of the $1.10 bid price per mineable ton assumed under the Caballo West Lease over the $0.95 price under the transferred lease. The Company received a true-up payment during the year ended December 31, 2014 and the cash receipt was classified in "Proceeds from disposal of assets, net of notes receivable" in the consolidated statement of cash flows. During 2015, Alpha filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Code and the final true up payment was not received. On February 19, 2016 the Company filed a claim in Alpha’s bankruptcy. Additionally, on April 15, 2016 the Company filed an objection to the potential assumption and assignment of the lease exchange agreement and to the cure amount. On October 16, 2016 the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Alpha and Contura Wyoming Land, LLC allowing the claim in the full amount of the true-up payment and resolving other issues between the parties. The settlement agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on December 14, 2016. The federal coal leases executed with the BLM described above expire after a 20-year initial term, unless at such time there is ongoing production on the subject leases or within an active logical mining unit of which they are part. Contingencies From time to time, the Company or its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or related to indemnities or historical operations. The Company believes it has recorded adequate reserves for these liabilities. The Company discusses its significant legal proceedings below, including ongoing proceedings and those that impacted the Company's results of operations for the periods presented. Effect of Automatic Stay. The Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code on the Petition Date in the Bankruptcy Court. Each of the Debtors continues to operate its business and manage its property as a debtor-in-possession pursuant to Sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. Subject to certain exceptions under the Bankruptcy Code, the filing of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Cases, pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, automatically enjoined, or stayed, among other things, the continuation of most judicial or administrative proceedings or the filing of other actions against or on behalf of the Debtors or their property to recover on, collect or secure a claim arising prior to the Petition Date or to exercise control over property of the Debtors’ bankruptcy estates, unless and until the Bankruptcy Court modifies or lifts the automatic stay as to any such claim. Notwithstanding the general application of the automatic stay described above, governmental authorities may determine to continue actions brought under their police and regulatory powers. The Debtors have filed notices of the bankruptcy filings and suggestions of stay in the applicable matters involving one or more of the Debtors as discussed below and in Note 27. "Matters Related to the Bankruptcy of Patriot Coal Corporation". The Company expects that the Chapter 11 Cases will impact the liabilities of the Debtors described below and in Note 27, as well as certain other contingent liabilities the Debtors may have. For example, if a contingent litigation liability of the Debtors is ultimately allowed as a prepetition "claim" under the Bankruptcy Code, that claim would be subject to the applicable treatment set forth in the Plan and be discharged pursuant to the terms of the Plan. However, until the Plan becomes effective, there can be no certainty as to how such liabilities will be impacted. Litigation Relating to Continuing Operations Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd and Peabody Energy Australia PCI Pty Ltd (PEA-PCI). In October 2007, a statement of claim was delivered to Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PEA-PCI, then Macarthur Coal Limited, and Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd, an equity accounted investee, from the minority interest holders in the Monto Coal Joint Venture, alleging that Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd breached the Monto Coal Joint Venture Agreement and Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd breached the Monto Coal Management Agreement. Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd is the manager of the Monto Coal Joint Venture pursuant to the Management Agreement. Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd holds a 51% interest in the Monto Coal Joint Venture. The plaintiffs are Sanrus Pty Ltd, Edge Developments Pty Ltd and H&J Enterprises (Qld) Pty Ltd. An additional statement of claim was delivered to PEA-PCI in November 2010 from the same minority interest holders in the Monto Coal Joint Venture, alleging that PEA-PCI induced Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd and Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd to breach the Monto Coal Joint Venture Agreement and the Monto Coal Management Agreement, respectively. The plaintiffs later amended their claim to allege damages for lost opportunities to sell their joint venture interest. These actions, which are pending before the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, seek damages from the three defendants collectively of amounts ranging from $15.6 million Australian dollars to $1.8 billion Australian dollars, plus interest and costs. The defendants dispute the claims and are vigorously defending their positions. Based on the Company's evaluation of the issues and their potential impact, the amount of any future loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Eagle Mining, LLC Arbitration. On May 3, 2013, Eagle Mining, LLC (Eagle) filed an arbitration demand against a Company subsidiary under a contract mining agreement, asserting various claims for damages. An arbitration hearing was held in January 2014 before a single arbitrator. As a result of the damages awarded to Eagle in arbitration, the Company recorded a charge of $15.6 million in "Operating costs and expenses" in the consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2014 to increase the associated liability accrual to $23.4 million. On April 18, 2014, the Company subsidiary filed a petition to partially vacate and modify the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division. On July 29, 2015, the District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the petition to partially vacate and modify the arbitration award and granting Eagle’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. In September 2015, Eagle and the Company's subsidiary settled all claims and agreed to dismiss with prejudice all pending litigation between the parties. In connection with this settlement, the Company recorded a gain totaling $10.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2015 to reduce the accrued liability to the amount paid. The matter has concluded. Queensland Bulk Handling Pty Ltd. On June 30, 2014, QBH filed a statement of claim with the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, against Peabody (Wilkie Creek) Pty Limited, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, alleging breach of a CPSA between the parties. QBH originally sought damages of $113.1 million Australian dollars, plus interest and costs. However, it later altered its claim to seek a declaration that the Company subsidiary had exercised an option to renew the contract for a further term, and withdrew its claim for money damages. In September 2016, a settlement was reached under which the Company agreed to pay $13.0 million Australian dollars ($9.9 million USD) to QBH in a full and final settlement of all claims each party had against the other in relation to the CPSA litigation. A deed of settlement was executed by the parties and the settlement amount was paid to QBH on September 30, 2016. This matter has concluded. Lori J. Lynn Class Action. On June 11, 2015, a former Peabody Investments Corp. (PIC) employee filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of three of the Company’s or its subsidiaries' 401(k) retirement plans and certain participants and beneficiaries of the plans. The lawsuit, which was brought against the Peabody Energy Corporation (PEC), Peabody Holding Company, LLC (PHC), PIC and a number of the Company’s and PIC’s current and former executives and employees, alleges breach of fiduciary duties and seeks monetary damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) relating to the offering of the Peabody Energy Stock Fund as an investment option in the 401(k) retirement plans. On September 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, named a new plaintiff and named all of the current members and two former members of the relevant boards of directors as defendants. The class period (December 2012 to present) remains unchanged. On November 9, 2015, the defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 11, 2016 that included new allegations against the Company related to the Company's disclosure to investors of risks associated with climate change and related legislation and regulations. The second amended complaint also added the three committees responsible for administering the three 401(k) retirement plans at issue and dropped several individual defendants, including current directors of PEC's board of directors. As a result of filing the Chapter 11 Cases, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the three Debtor defendants (PEC, PIC and PHC) and elected to proceed against the individual defendants and the three named committees with the second amended complaint. On November 17, 2016, the parties presented arguments on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. A ruling has not yet been issued. CNTA Dispute. On May 20, 2016, the Company filed a complaint and a request for declaratory judgment in the Bankruptcy Court against Citibank, N.A. (in its capacity as Administrative Agent under the Company’s 2013 Credit Facility), among others, regarding the extent of certain collateral and secured claims of certain prepetition creditors. On June 13, 2016, Citibank, N.A. filed an answer and counter-claim for declaratory judgment. On June 14, 2016, two motions to intervene were filed, one from the Creditors' Committee and another from a group of creditors holding $1.65 billion in face value of the Company's Senior Notes (as indicated in their motion). On June 20, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting the Debtors' motion requesting that the Bankruptcy Court direct all parties to the proceeding to participate in non-binding mediation. The intervention motions were granted on July 7, 2016. On October 7, 2016, a group of creditors holding approximately $287.4 million in face value of the Company’s Senior Secured Second Lien Notes (as indicated in their motion) filed a motion to intervene. The Bankruptcy Court heard oral arguments related to the parties’ motions for summary judgment on September 12, 2016 and subsequently vacated the previously scheduled trial dates and deferred ruling on the matter while the parties continued with mediation. Mediation and negotiation with certain creditors resulted in a settlement of the CNTA Dispute, which is reflected in the economic terms of the Plan, including the treatment of the holders of allowed secured and unsecured claims. APS/PacifiCorp Litigation. The Arizona Public Service Company (APS) and PacifiCorp filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court seeking authorization to allow it to terminate a coal supply agreement, which accounts for approximately half of the Company's El Segundo Mine sales volume. The Company filed a complaint for APS’s and PacifiCorp’s violation of the automatic stay applicable to the Chapter 11 Cases and breach of the coal supply agreement. In September 2016, the parties engaged in a court-ordered mediation. The parties continued to engage in mediation in December 2016 and January 2017. On January 8, 2017 the parties entered into a Settlement Term Sheet outlining a settlement in principle (Settlement Term Sheet). On January 17, 2017, the Company filed a Motion Of The Debtors And Debtors In Possession, Pursuant To Bankruptcy Rule 9019 And Section 365 Of The Bankruptcy Code, For Entry Of An Order (I) Approving A Settlement Agreement With APS and PacifiCorp, (II) Authorizing The Assumption Of The Coal Supply Agreement, As Amended and (III) Granting Related Relief. On January 27, 2017 the Bankruptcy Court entered its order approving the Settlement Term Sheet and authorizing the parties to enter into a settlement agreement and amendment to the coal supply agreement. The parties entered into a settlement agreement and an amendment to the coal supply agreement on February 3, 2017. Berenergy Corporation. The Company has been in a legal dispute with Berenergy Corporation (Berenergy) regarding Berenergy’s access to certain of its underground oil deposits beneath the Company's North Antelope Rochelle Mine and contiguous undisturbed areas. The Company believes that any claims related to this matter constitute prepetition claims. On October 13, 2016, the Sixth Judicial Court in the state of Wyoming (Wyoming Court) entered an order (Wyoming Court Decision) allowing the Company the right to mine through certain wells owned by Berenergy but required the Company to compensate Berenergy for damages of $0.9 million, which the Company has accrued as of December 31, 2016. Further, the Wyoming Court ruled that should Berenergy obtain approval from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (the Commission) to recover certain secondary deposits beneath the mine’s contiguous undisturbed areas, the Company would be liable to Berenergy for the cost of certain special procedures and equipment required to access the secondary deposits remotely from outside the Company's mine area, which has been estimated as $13.1 million by Berenergy. The Company believes it is not probable that the Commission will approve access to the secondary deposits based on the Company's view of a lack of economic feasibility and certain restrictions on Berenergy's legal claim to the deposits. Based upon these factors, the Company has not accrued a liability related to the secondary deposits as of December 31, 2016. On November 22, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting Berenergy limited relief from the automatic stay to pursue an appeal of the Wyoming Court Decision with the Wyoming Supreme Court. On December 21, 2016, Berenergy filed a Notice of Appeal with the Wyoming Supreme Court of the Wyoming Court Decision. On January 5, 2017, Peabody filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal with the Wyoming Supreme Court of the Wyoming Court Decision. Claims, Litigation and Settlements Relating to Indemnities or Historical Operations Environmental Claims and Litigation Arising From Historical, Non-Coal Producing Operations. Gold Fields Mining, LLC (Gold Fields) is a non-coal producing entity that was previously managed and owned by Hanson plc, the Company's predecessor owner. In a February 1997 spin-off, Hanson plc transferred ownership of Gold Fields to PEC despite the fact that Gold Fields had no ongoing operations and PEC had no prior involvement in the past operations of Gold Fields. Gold Fields is currently one of PEC's subsidiaries. As part of separate transactions, both PEC and Gold Fields also agreed to indemnify Blue Tee with respect to certain claims relating to the historical operations of a predecessor of Blue Tee, which is a former affiliate of Gold Fields. Neither PEC nor Gold Fields had any involvement with the past operations of the Blue Tee predecessor. Pursuant to the indemnity, Blue Tee has tendered its environmental claims for remediation, past cost and future costs and/or natural resource damages (Blue Tee Liabilities) to Gold Fields. Although Gold Fields has paid remediation costs as a result of the indemnification obligations, Blue Tee has been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at various designated national priority list (NPL) sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and similar statutes. Of these sites where Blue Tee has been identified as a PRP, neither Gold Fields nor PEC is a party to any cleanup orders relating to the operations of Blue Tee’s predecessor. In addition to the NPL sites, Blue Tee has been named a PRP at multiple other sites, where Gold Fields has either paid remediation costs or settled the environmental claims on behalf of Blue Tee. As a result of filing the Chapter 11 Cases, Gold Fields has now stopped paying these remediation costs. Environmental assessments for remediation, past and future costs and/or natural resource damages also have been asserted by the EPA and natural resources trustees against Gold Fields related to historical activities of Gold Fields’ predecessor. Gold Fields has been identified as a PRP at four NPL sites and has been conducting response actions or working with the EPA to resolve past cost recovery claims at these sites pursuant to cleanup orders or other negotiations. As a result of filing the Chapter 11 Cases, Gold Fields has ceased its response actions and other engagements with the EPA at these sites. Undiscounted liabilities for environmental cleanup-related costs relating to (i) the contractual indemnification obligations owed to Blue Tee and (ii) for the sites noted above for which Gold Fields has been identified as a PRP as a result of the operations of its predecessor, are collectively estimated to be $62.8 million and $66.9 million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, in the consolidated balance sheets. The majority of these estimated costs relate to Blue Tee site liabilities. P rior to the August 19, 2016 bar date for filing claims in the Chapter 11 Cases, Blue Tee filed an unliquidated, general unsecured claim in the amount of $65.6 million against Gold Fields regarding the Blue Tee Liabilities, additional unliquidated claims in an unknown amount in excess of $150 million at known sites, and further contingent claims at known and unknown sites, including natural resources damages (NRDs) claims alleged, without explanation, to be in the range of $500 million. On November 17, 2016 Blue Tee amended its claim to increase the amount of the claim to $1.2 billion. PEC and Gold Fields believe that these claims significantly overstate any liabilities that may exist for remediation costs or potential NRDs. Prior to the October 11, 2016 government bar date for filing claims in the Chapter 11 Cases, several governmental entities including the EPA, the Department of the Interior and several states filed unliquidated, secured and general unsecured claims against PEC and Gold Fields. These claims total in excess of $2.7 billion and allege damages for past and future remediation costs as well as for alleged NRDs at several sites. As noted in the claims, many of the claims are duplicative as they overlap with each other as well as with claims made by Blue Tee. Additionally, PEC and Gold Fields believe the claims significantly overstate any liabilities that may exist for remediation costs or potential NRDs. On January 27, 2017, PEC filed objections to claims filed by the U.S. Department of Interior, the U.S. Department of Justice and the EPA (collectively the PEC Objections). The PEC Objections dispute that Peabody Energy Corporation has liability to the claimant under applicable federal environmental statutes for the Blue Tee sites listed in the claims based on the fact that Peabody Energy Corporation never owned any of the sites or disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances at any of the sites. On February 2, 2017, Gold Fields filed objections to claims filed by the State of Oklahoma, the State of Missouri, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and the U.S. Department of Interior, the EPA, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (collectively the Gold Fields Objections). The Gold Fields Objections dispute that Gold Fields has liability to the claimant under applicable federal and state environmental statutes for the Blue Tee sites listed in the claims based on the fact that Gold Fields never owned any of the sites or disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances at any of the sites. On March 16, 2017, the Debtors agreed to settle the objections to the Plan filed by Blue Tee and several government entities in the Chapter 11 Cases. Under the settlements, the Debtors will (1) not seek to recover federal tax refunds owed to Debtors in the amount of approximately $11 million; (2) transfer $12 million of insurance settlement proceeds from Century and Pacific Employers Insurance Company relating to environmental liabilities to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust (as described in the Plan); and (3) pay $20 million to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust on or around the Plan Effective Date. On March 16 and 17, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered orders approving these settlements. The Debtors and government entities intend to enter into settlement agreements to reflect the above. Other At times the Company becomes a party to other disputes, including those related to contract miner performance, claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, regulatory investigations and administrative procedures in the ordinary course of business in the U.S., Australia and other countries where the Company does business. Based on current information, the Company believes that such other pending or threatened proceedings are likely to be resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://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