XML 37 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2.2

Litigation and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Litigation and Contingencies | Litigation and ContingenciesThe Company is subject to various claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business, including from time to time, contractual disputes, employment and environmental matters, product and general liability claims, claims that the Company has infringed on the intellectual property rights of others, and consumer and employment class actions. Some of the legal proceedings include claims for punitive as well as compensatory damages. In the ordinary course of business, the Company is also subject to legislative requests, regulatory and governmental examinations, information requests and subpoenas, inquiries, investigations, and threatened legal actions and proceedings. In connection with such formal and informal inquiries, the Company receives numerous requests, subpoenas, and orders for documents, testimony and information in connection with various aspects of its activities. The Company previously disclosed that it had received a subpoena and related informal document requests from the SEC primarily relating to its sales practices and certain accounting matters for the time period beginning from January 1, 2016. The Company has cooperated with the SEC in connection with its investigation and ongoing requests for documents, testimony and information and intends to continue to do so. The Company cannot predict the timing or outcome of this investigation. Further, on June 30, 2021, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC requesting the production of documents related to its disclosure of the potential impact of the U.S. Treasury regulations described in Footnote 12 - Income Taxes. Securities Litigation Certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors have been named in shareholder derivative lawsuits. On October 29, 2018, a shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Streicher v. Polk, et al., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Streicher Derivative Action”), purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. On October 30, 2018, another shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Martindale v. Polk, et al., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Martindale Derivative Action”), asserting substantially similar claims purportedly on behalf of the Company against the same defendants. The complaints allege, among other things, violations of the federal securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The factual allegations underlying these claims are similar to the factual allegations made in the In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation that was previously pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. That matter was dismissed by the District Court on January 10, 2020, and the dismissal was affirmed by the United States District Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on December 1, 2020. The complaints seek damages and restitution for the Company from the individual defendants, the payment of costs and attorneys’ fees, and that the Company be directed to reform certain governance and internal procedures. The Streicher Derivative Action and the Martindale Derivative Action have been consolidated and the case is now known as In re Newell Brands Inc. Derivative Litigation (the “Newell Brands Derivative Action”), which is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On March 22, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware stayed the Newell Brands Derivative Action pending the resolution of any motions for summary judgment filed in Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al. (described below). On December 30, 2020, two shareholders filed a putative derivative complaint, Weber, et al. v. Polk, et al., in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Weber Derivative Action”), purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. The complaint in the Weber Derivative Action alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets. The factual allegations underlying these claims are similar to the factual allegations made in the Newell Brands Derivative Action. On March 19, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware stayed the Weber Derivative Action pending final disposition of Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al. (described below). The Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors have been named as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common stock pursuant to the S-4 registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of Jarden Corporation (the “Registration Statement”). The action was filed on September 6, 2018 and is captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18. The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company’s financial results, trends, and metrics. In October 2022, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the claims asserted in this lawsuit. Under the settlement, the Company agreed to create a settlement fund of approximately $103 million for the benefit of the class, subject to certain exclusions, which will be predominantly funded by insurance proceeds. Both the settlement and the insurance receivable were recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2022. The amount not to be funded by available insurance proceeds, which is not material to the Company, was expensed during the third quarter of 2022. In October 2022, a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County. The settlement is subject to certain conditions, including preliminary and final court approval. Environmental Matters The Company is involved in various matters concerning federal and state environmental laws and regulations, including matters in which the Company has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) and certain state environmental agencies as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) at contaminated sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and equivalent state laws. In assessing its environmental response costs, the Company has considered several factors, including the extent of the Company’s volumetric contribution at each site relative to that of other PRPs; the kind of waste; the terms of existing cost sharing and other applicable agreements; the financial ability of other PRPs to share in the payment of requisite costs; the Company’s prior experience with similar sites; environmental studies and cost estimates available to the Company; the effects of inflation on cost estimates; and the extent to which the Company’s, and other parties’ status as PRPs is disputed. The Company’s estimate of environmental remediation costs associated with these matters at September 30, 2022 was $33 million which is included in other accrued liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. No insurance recovery was taken into account in determining the Company’s cost estimates or reserves, nor do the Company’s cost estimates or reserves reflect any discounting for present value purposes, except with respect to certain long-term operations and maintenance CERCLA matters. Because of the uncertainties associated with environmental investigations and response activities, the possibility that the Company could be identified as a PRP at sites identified in the future that require the incurrence of environmental response costs and the possibility that sites acquired in business combinations may require environmental response costs, actual costs to be incurred by the Company may vary from the Company’s estimates. Lower Passaic River Matter Background The U.S. EPA has issued General Notice Letters to over 100 entities, including the Company and its subsidiary, Berol Corporation (together, the “Company Parties”), alleging that they are PRPs at the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site (the “Site”) pursuant to CERCLA. The Site is the subject of investigation and remedial activities (the “CERCLA Administrative Actions”) and related settlement negotiations with the U.S. EPA. In addition, the Company Parties are defendants in related litigation, and the Site is also subject to a Natural Resource Damage Assessment. CERCLA Administrative Actions The Site is divided into four “operable units,” and the Company Parties have received General Notice Letters in connection with operable unit 2, which comprises the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River and its tributaries (“Unit 2”), and operable Unit 4, which comprises a 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River and its tributaries (“Unit 4”). Unit 2 is geographically subsumed within Unit 4. Unit 4 Investigation The Company received its first general notice letter pertaining to Unit 4 in 2003. Beginning in 2004, the Company Parties, together with numerous other PRPs, entered into several administrative agreements with the U.S. EPA to fund and perform various investigation and clean-up activities in Unit 4. Pursuant to a 2007 Administrative Order on Consent, over 70 PRPs, including the Company Parties, have been performing or funding the remedial investigation and feasibility study for Unit 4. The parties performing the remedial investigation and feasibility study submitted the results of their remedial investigation to the U.S. EPA in July 2019. They also submitted an interim remedy feasibility study focused on the upper 9 miles of Unit 4 in September 2021. Activity under the remedial investigation and feasibility study for Unit 4 is not yet complete and remains underway. In October 2021, the U.S. EPA issued a Record of Decision for an interim remedy for the upper 9 miles of Unit 4, selecting a combination of dredging and capping as the remedial alternative, which the U.S. EPA estimates will cost $441 million in the aggregate. Unit 2 Investigation Concurrent with activities under the remedial investigation and feasibility study for Unit 4, the U.S. EPA performed a Source Control Early Action Focused Feasibility Study for Unit 2, which culminated in a Record of Decision in 2016. The U.S. EPA estimates that the selected remedy for Unit 2 set forth in its Record of Decision will cost $1.4 billion in the aggregate. The U.S. EPA then issued a General Notice Letter for Unit 2 to the Company Parties and over 100 other entities, including those that received a General Notice Letter in connection with Unit 4. The Unit 2 General Notice Letter requested that Occidental Chemical Corporation (“OCC”) perform the remedial design for Unit 2, which OCC subsequently agreed to perform. The General Notice Letter indicated that, following execution of a remedial design consent decree, the U.S. EPA would begin negotiating a remedial action consent decree for Unit 2 with OCC and other major PRPs. 2016 Record of Decision and 2021 Record of Decision Remedy Performance In March 2022, U.S. EPA issued a Notice of Potential Liability and Notice of Consent Decree Negotiations to OCC and several other entities, excluding the Company Parties, encouraging those parties to finance and perform the remedies selected in the 2016 and 2021 Records of Decision. The U.S. EPA specifically identified OCC and four other companies as “work parties” in connection with Units 2 and 4. The Company Parties were not recipients of this notice and were not identified as work parties. The U.S. EPA Settlement In September 2017, the U.S. EPA announced an allocation process involving roughly 80 Unit 2 General Notice Letter recipients, with the intent of offering cash-out settlements to a number of parties (the “U.S. EPA Settlement”). The PRPs responsible for release of dioxin, furans, and/or polychlorinated biphenyls would be expected to perform the remedial action for Unit 2 and would be excluded from the U.S. EPA Settlement. The allocation process has concluded. In February 2022, the U.S. EPA and certain parties to the allocation, including the Company Parties, reached an agreement in principle concerning a cash-out settlement for both Unit 2 and Unit 4. U.S. EPA and the parties participating in the U.S. EPA Settlement are in the process of finalizing a consent decree, which will be subject to court entry. The OCC Litigation In June 2018, OCC sued over 100 parties, including the Company Parties, in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey pursuant to CERCLA, requesting cost recovery, contribution, and a declaratory judgement. The defendants, in turn, filed claims against 42 third-party defendants, and filed counterclaims against OCC (collectively, the “OCC Litigation”). The primary focus of the OCC Litigation has been certain past and future costs for investigation, design and remediation of Units 2 and 4. However, OCC has stated that it anticipates asserting claims against defendants regarding Newark Bay, which is also part of the Site, after the U.S. EPA has selected the Newark Bay remedy. OCC has also stated that it may broaden its claims in the future after completion of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment described below. In a Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed in January 2022, certain defendants and all third-party defendants in the OCC Litigation moved to stay the case for a six-month period to allow the final stage of the parallel allocation proceedings and resulting settlement negotiations in the U.S. EPA Settlement to conclude. The U.S. District Court denied the motion in March 2022. The Company Parties continue to vigorously defend the OCC Litigation. At this time, the Company cannot predict the eventual outcome. The Natural Resource Damage Assessment In 2007, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), acting as the lead administrative trustee on behalf of itself and the U.S. Department of the Interior, issued a Notice of Intent to Perform a Natural Resource Damage Assessment to the Company Parties, along with numerous other entities, identifying the recipients as PRPs. The federal trustees (who now include the United States Department of Commerce, represented by NOAA, and the Department of the Interior, represented by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service) are presently undertaking the Natural Resource Damage Assessment. As of the date of filing of this Quarterly Report, based on the agreement in principle noted above, the Company does not expect that its allocation in the U.S. EPA Settlement relating to Unit 2 and Unit 4, if the settlement is finalized, will be material to the Company. With respect to the OCC Litigation and Natural Resource Damage Assessment, the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the range of possible losses. Based on currently known facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that the Lower Passaic River matter is reasonably likely to have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations. However, in the event of one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter and the impact on the Company’s results of operations could be material. Because of the uncertainties associated with environmental investigations and response activities, the possibility that the Company could be identified as a PRP at sites identified in the future that require the incurrence of environmental response costs and the possibility that sites acquired in business combinations may require environmental response costs, actual costs to be incurred by the Company may vary from the Company’s estimates. Other Matters In the normal course of business and as part of its acquisition and divestiture strategy, the Company may provide certain representations and indemnifications related to legal, environmental, product liability, tax or other types of issues. Based on the nature of these representations and indemnifications, it is not possible to predict the maximum potential payments under all of these agreements due to the conditional nature of the Company’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under these agreements did not have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations. In connection with the 2018 sale of The Waddington Group, Novolex Holdings, Inc. (the “Buyer”) filed suit against the Company in October 2019 in the Superior Court of Delaware. The Buyer generally alleged that the Company fraudulently breached certain representations in the Equity Purchase Agreement between the Company and Buyer, dated May 2, 2018, resulting in an inflated purchase price for The Waddington Group. In the year ended December 31, 2021 the Company recorded an immaterial reserve to continuing operations in its Consolidated Financial Statements based on its best estimate of probable loss associated with this matter. Further, in connection with the Company’s sale of The United States Playing Card Company (“USPC”), Cartamundi, Inc. and Cartamundi España, S.L., (the “Buyers”) have notified the Company of their contention that certain representations and warranties in the Stock Purchase Agreement, dated June 4, 2019, were inaccurate and/or breached, and have sought indemnification to the extent that the Buyers are required to pay related damages arising out of a third party lawsuit that was recently filed against USPC. Although management of the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of other proceedings with certainty, it believes that the ultimate resolution of the Company’s proceedings, including any amounts it may be required to pay in excess of amounts reserved, will not have a material effect on the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, except as otherwise described in this Footnote 17. At September 30, 2022, the Company had approximately $41 million in standby letters of credit primarily related to the Company’s self-insurance programs, including workers’ compensation, product liability and medical expenses.

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 legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration