XML 31 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.2

Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2021
Contingencies |
Contingencies | ​ 10. Contingencies Asbestos From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. The Company sold its insulation business unit in April 1958. The Company historically received claims from individuals alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos from this product (“Asbestos Claims”). Some Asbestos Claims were brought as personal injury lawsuits that typically allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. Predominantly, however, Asbestos Claims were historically presented to the Company under administrative claims-handling agreements, which the Company had in place with many plaintiffs’ counsel throughout the country (“Administrative Claims”). Administrative Claims required evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria established by the related claims-handling agreements. The criteria for Administrative Claims included verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in 1958. Plaintiffs’ counsel presented, and the Company negotiated, Administrative Claims under these various agreements in differing quantities, at different times, and under a variety of conditions. On December 26 and 27, 2019, the Company implemented the Corporate Modernization, whereby O-I Glass became the new parent entity with Owens-Illinois Group, Inc. (“O-I Group”) and Paddock Enterprises LLC (“Paddock”) as direct, wholly owned subsidiaries, with Paddock as the successor-by-merger to O-I. The Company’s legacy asbestos-related liabilities remained within Paddock, with the Company’s glass-making operations remaining under O-I Group. As part of the Corporate Modernization transactions, O-I Glass entered into a support agreement with Paddock that requires O-I Glass to provide funding to Paddock for all permitted uses, subject to the terms of the support agreement. The key objectives of the Paddock support agreement are to ensure that Paddock has the ability to fund the costs and expenses of managing the Chapter 11 process, and ultimately settle Asbestos Claims through the establishment of a trust as described below and fund certain other liabilities. On January 6, 2020 (the “Petition Date”), Paddock voluntarily filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) to equitably and finally resolve all of its current and future asbestos-related claims. O-I Glass and O-I Group were not included in the Chapter 11 filing. As a result of the initiation of the Chapter 11 proceeding, Paddock continues to operate in the ordinary course and with court protection from Asbestos Claims by operation of the automatic stay in Paddock’s Chapter 11 filing, which stays ongoing litigation and submission of claims against Paddock outside the Bankruptcy Court as of the Petition Date and defers the payment of Paddock’s outstanding obligations on account of settled or otherwise determined lawsuits and claims. The bankruptcy process is expected to provide a centralized forum to resolve presently pending and anticipated future lawsuits and claims associated with asbestos. Paddock’s ultimate goal in its Chapter 11 case is to confirm a plan of reorganization under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code and utilize this specialized provision to establish a trust that will address all current and future asbestos-related claims and that, in exchange for funding of the trust by the Company and/or its subsidiaries, will provide permanent injunctive relief, protecting the Company, each of its current and former affiliates and certain other related parties (the “Company Protected Parties”) from any Asbestos Claims based on products manufactured, sold, used, and/or distributed by Owens-Illinois, Inc. Following the Petition Date, the activities of Paddock became subject to review and oversight by the bankruptcy court. As a result, the Company no longer has exclusive control over Paddock’s activities during the Chapter 11 proceedings. Therefore, Paddock was deconsolidated as of the Petition Date, and its assets and liabilities, which primarily included $47 million of cash, the legacy asbestos-related liabilities, as well as certain other assets and liabilities as of the Petition Date, were derecognized from the Company’s consolidated financial statements on a prospective basis. Simultaneously, the Company recognized a liability related to the Paddock support agreement, as described above, of $471 million as required under applicable accounting standards. The deconsolidation and Paddock support agreement resulted in a loss of approximately $14 million, which was reflected as a charge in the Company’s first quarter 2020 operating results. Additionally, the deconsolidation resulted in an investing outflow of $47 million in the Company’s first quarter 2020 consolidated cash flows. On February 23, 2021, Paddock and O-I Glass commenced a court-approved mediation process regarding the terms of a potential consensual plan of reorganization pursuant to section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code with the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants (the “ACC” or “Asbestos Claimants’ Committee”) appointed in the Paddock Chapter 11 case as the representative of current Paddock asbestos claimants, and the Legal Representative of Future Asbestos Claimants (the “FCR” or “Future Claimants’ Representative”) appointed in the Paddock Chapter 11 case as the representative of future Paddock asbestos claimants. On April 26, 2021, the Company announced that Paddock, the ACC and the FCR reached an agreement in principle, supported by O-I Glass, by accepting a proposal from the mediators setting forth total consideration to fund a trust created under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code upon the effective date of a consensual plan of reorganization for Paddock. This agreement in principle, which is subject to definitive documentation and satisfaction of certain conditions, will resolve the potential liability of Paddock and the Company Protected Parties for pending and future personal injury claims related to exposure to asbestos-containing products that were allegedly manufactured, distributed, used and/or sold by Owens-Illinois, Inc. Under the Chapter 11 plan that will implement the agreement in principle, an asbestos settlement trust (the “Paddock Trust”) created pursuant to the provisions of section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code will be established and, on the effective date of the Chapter 11 plan, will be funded with $610 million in total consideration (“Settlement Consideration”). In exchange for the Settlement Consideration, each of the Company Protected Parties is expected to receive the benefit of a release from Paddock, and Paddock and the Company Protected Parties will receive the benefit of an injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code channeling Asbestos Claims to the Paddock Trust and permanently enjoining the assertion of Asbestos Claims against Paddock and the Company Protected Parties. The agreement in principle is subject to, among other things, the negotiation and filing of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization for Paddock incorporating the terms of such agreement (the “Plan”), acceptance of the Plan by at least 75% of Paddock’s current asbestos claimants voting on such Plan, and confirmation of the Plan by the Bankruptcy Court and approval of the injunction in favor of Paddock and the Company Protected Parties by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“District Court”). On the effective date of the Plan, the Settlement Consideration will be provided and Asbestos Claims against Paddock and the Company Protected Parties will be permanently enjoined. In connection with the agreement in principle, the Company has recorded a charge of $154 million related to its potential liability under the Paddock support agreement as a recognizable subsequent event in the Company’s consolidated results of operations for the quarter ended March 31, 2021, primarily related to an increase to Paddock’s asbestos reserve estimate in consideration for the channeling injunction to be included in the Plan protecting Company Protected Parties from Asbestos Claims, as well as certain other adjustments to Paddock’s assets and liabilities, including estimated professional fees and expenses to be incurred in confirming and implementing the Plan. This charge was recorded to Other income (expense), net on the Condensed Consolidated Results of Operations. Several risks and uncertainties remain related to Paddock’s Chapter 11 case that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, including the total costs of the Chapter 11 proceeding, and the length of time necessary to confirm a Plan, and the possibility that Paddock will be unsuccessful in confirming such Plan or that such Plan does not ultimately become effective. The Paddock support agreement liability of $625 million recorded on the Company’s June 30, 2021 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as required under applicable accounting standards is the Company’s best estimate based on the facts and circumstances that exist at the Form 10-Q filing date. These risk factors are discussed further in Part II, Item 1A–“Risk Factors.” As noted above, the Company previously recognized a liability related to the Paddock support agreement, as described above, of $471 million as required under applicable accounting standards. That liability was based on the following analysis. Prior to the Petition Date, the Company knew of approximately 850 asbestos lawsuits pending. This figure does not include an estimate of potential Administrative Claims that could have been presented under a claims-handling agreement due to the uncertainties around presentation timing, quantities, or qualification rates. The Company historically considered Administrative Claims to be filed and disposed of when they were accepted for payment. The lack of uniform rules in lawsuit pleading practice, technical pleading requirements in some jurisdictions, local rules, and other factors caused considerable variation in the specific amounts of monetary damages asserted in lawsuits brought prior to the Petition Date. In the Company’s experience, the monetary relief alleged in a lawsuit bore little relationship to an Asbestos Claim’s merits or its disposition value. Rather, several variables, including, but not limited to, the type and severity of the asbestos disease, medical history, and exposure to other disease-causing agents; the product identification evidence against the Company and other co-defendants; the defenses available to the Company and other co-defendants; the specific jurisdiction in which the claim was made; the applicable law; and the law firm representing the claimant, affected the value. The Company was also a defendant in other Asbestos Claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring, co-defendants’ third-party actions, and property damage allegations. Based upon its experience, the Company assessed that these categories of Asbestos Claims would not involve any material liability. Therefore, they were not included in the description of pending or disposed matters. From receipt of its first Asbestos Claim to the Petition Date, the Company in the aggregate disposed of approximately 401,200 Asbestos Claims at an average indemnity payment of approximately $10,200 per claim. The Company’s asbestos indemnity payments varied on a per-claim basis. Asbestos-related cash payments for 2019 were $151 million and the Company’s cash payments per claim disposed (inclusive of legal costs) were approximately $129,000 for the year ended December 31, 2019. Prior to the Petition Date, the Company’s objective was historically to achieve, where possible, resolution of Asbestos Claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Failure of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in claims-handling agreements generally reduced the number of claims that would otherwise have been received by the Company in the tort system. In addition, changes in jurisdictional dynamics, legislative acts, asbestos docket management and procedures, the substantive law, the co-defendant pool, and other external factors affected lawsuit volume, claim volume, qualification rates, claim values, and related matters. Collectively, these variables generally had the effect of increasing the Company’s per-claim average indemnity payment over time. Beginning with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of approximately $5.0 billion through just prior to the Petition Date, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability. The Company’s estimates of its liability were significantly affected by, among other factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States, the significant number of co-defendants that filed for bankruptcy, changes in mortality rates, the inherent uncertainty of future disease incidence and claiming patterns against the Company, the significant expansion of the types of defendants sued in this litigation, and changes in the extent to which such defendants participated in the resolution of cases in which the Company was also a defendant. Prior to the Petition Date, the Company continually monitored trends that could affect its ultimate liability and analyzed the developments and variables likely to affect the resolution of Asbestos Claims. The material components of the Company’s total accrued liability were determined by the Company in connection with its annual comprehensive legal review and consisted of the following estimates, to the extent it was probable that such liabilities had been incurred and could be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for Asbestos Claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the liability for Asbestos Claims not yet asserted against the Company; and (iii) the legal defense costs estimated to be incurred in connection with the Asbestos Claims already asserted and those Asbestos Claims the Company believed would be asserted. Through December 31, 2019, the Company historically conducted an annual comprehensive legal review of its asbestos-related liabilities and costs in connection with finalizing and reporting its annual consolidated results of operations, unless significant changes in trends or new developments warranted an earlier review. As part of its annual comprehensive legal review, the Company provided historical Asbestos Claims data to a third party with expertise in determining the impact of disease incidence and mortality on future filing trends to develop information to assist the Company in estimating the total number of future Asbestos Claims likely to be asserted against the Company. The Company used this estimate, along with an estimation of disposition costs and related legal costs, as inputs to develop its best estimate of its total probable liability. If the results of the annual comprehensive legal review indicated that the existing amount of the accrued liability was lower (higher) than its reasonably estimable asbestos-related costs, then the Company recorded an appropriate charge (credit) to the Company’s results of operations to increase (decrease) the accrued liability. The significant assumptions underlying the material components of the Company’s accrual historically were:
| a) | settlements would continue to be limited almost exclusively to claimants who were exposed to the Company’s asbestos containing insulation prior to its exit from that business in 1958;
| b) | Asbestos Claims would continue to be resolved primarily under the Company’s administrative claims-handling agreements or on terms comparable to those set forth in those agreements;
| c) | the incidence of serious asbestos-related disease cases and claiming patterns against the Company for such cases would not change materially, including claiming pattern changes driven by changes in the law, procedure, or expansion of judicial resources in jurisdictions where the Company settled Asbestos Claims;
| d) | the Company would be substantially able to defend itself successfully at trial and on appeal;
| e) | the number and timing of additional co-defendant bankruptcies would not change significantly the assets available to participate in the resolution of cases in which the Company is a defendant; and
| f) | co-defendants with substantial resources and assets would continue to participate significantly in the resolution of future Asbestos Claims.
For the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company concluded that an accrual in the amount of $486 million was required under applicable accounting standards. This amount was not discounted for the time value of money. The Company’s comprehensive legal review resulted in a charge of $35 million for the year ended December 31, 2019. As previously disclosed, the Company anticipated that adjustments to its asbestos-related accruals were possible given the inherent uncertainties involved in asbestos litigation. In the fourth quarter of 2019, this charge was primarily due to an increase in the estimated average disposition cost per claim (including related legal costs), driven primarily by a changing litigation environment more favorable to plaintiffs, and a decrease in the estimated number of claims likely to be asserted against the Company in the future that was less than the decrease expected by the Company. Other Matters In February 2021, severe weather conditions swept across the southern United States, curtailing access to natural gas and electricity for several of the Company’s facilities. While the situation was most acute in Texas, access to natural gas in Mexico was also significantly impacted as Texas supplies natural gas to the country. The Company was notified by energy providers in both the United States and Mexico that it may be assessed surcharges for usage or excess usage of electricity and natural gas during that period. Although most of these surcharges had not yet been formally assessed as of the first quarter of 2021, the Company believed that these costs were probable and reasonably estimable and therefore had accrued approximately $20 million as of March 31, 2021, which was based on the best information available at that time. In the second quarter of 2021, the Company paid approximately $2 million of the energy surcharges to certain providers and the Company was notified by certain providers that approximately $5 million of the potential surcharges would not be assessed and therefore the related accruals were reversed to earnings. At June 30, 2021, the Company had approximately $13 million accrued for this matter. The Company believes that it is reasonably possible that it could incur losses for this matter that materially differ from the $13 million accrued as of June 30, 2021, including amounts in excess of the amount currently recognized. However, given the lack of information available from regulators, suppliers and state and federal authorities, the Company is unable to make an estimate of the possible loss or range of losses at this time. In the second quarter of 2021, the Company recorded a $69 million gain based on a favorable court ruling in Brazil, which will allow the Company to recover indirect taxes paid in previous years. This gain was recorded to Other income (expense), net on the Condensed Consolidated Results of Operations, as well as $28 million of income tax expense that was recognized as a discrete item in the second quarter of 2021. ​ Other litigation is pending against the Company, in some cases involving ordinary and routine claims incidental to the business of the Company and in others presenting allegations that are non-routine and involve compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims as well as other types of relief. The Company records a liability for such matters when it is both probable that the liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. Recorded amounts are reviewed and adjusted to reflect changes in the factors upon which the estimates are based, including additional information, negotiations, settlements and other events. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration