(13) Commitments and Contingencies

Leases and Unconditional Purchase Obligations

The minimum required payments for operating leases and unconditional purchase obligations are as follows:



	Operating Leases		Unconditional Purchase Obligations

	(in thousands)
Year ending December 31, 2016	$	4,937	$	20,221
Year ending December 31, 2017	3,307		15,040
Year ending December 31, 2018	2,496		13,573
Year ending December 31, 2019	1,897		11,786
Year ending December 31, 2020	1,403		9,445
Thereafter	2,257		57,058
	$	16,297	$	127,123

CRNF leases railcars and facilities under long-term operating leases. Lease expense is included in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 and totaled approximately $4.6 million, $4.6 million and $4.7 million, respectively. The lease agreements have various remaining terms. Some agreements are renewable, at CRNF's option, for additional periods. It is expected, in the ordinary course of business, that leases will be renewed or replaced as they expire.

The Partnership's purchase obligation for pet coke from CVR Refining and has been derived from a calculation of the average pet coke price paid to CVR Refining over the preceding two year period. See Note 14 ("Related Party Transactions") for further discussion of the coke supply agreement.

During 2005, CRNF entered into the Amended and Restated On-Site Product Supply Agreement with The BOC Group, Inc. (as predecessor in interest to Linde LLC). Pursuant to the agreement, which expires in 2020, CRNF is required to take as available and pay for the supply of oxygen and nitrogen to the fertilizer operation. Expenses associated with this agreement are included in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) and for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, totaled approximately $3.4 million, $4.0 million and $3.9 million, respectively.

The Partnership is party to a pet coke supply agreement with HollyFrontier Corporation. The term of this agreement ends in December 2016. The delivered cost of this pet coke totaled approximately $4.8 million, $4.3 million and $4.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, which was recorded in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization).

Litigation

From time to time, the Partnership is involved in various lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, including matters such as those described below under "Environmental, Health, and Safety ("EHS") Matters." Liabilities related to such litigation are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. It is possible that management's estimates of the outcomes will change within the next year due to uncertainties inherent in litigation and settlement negotiations. In the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of any other litigation matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's results of operations or financial condition. There can be no assurance that management's beliefs or opinions with respect to liability for potential litigation matters are accurate.

CRNF received a ten year property tax abatement from Montgomery County, Kansas (the "County") in connection with the construction of the nitrogen fertilizer plant that expired on December 31, 2007. In connection with the expiration of the abatement, the County reclassified and reassessed CRNF's nitrogen fertilizer plant for property tax purposes. The reclassification and reassessment resulted in an increase in CRNF's annual property tax expense by an average of approximately $10.7 million per year for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009, $11.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, $11.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 and $11.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. CRNF protested the classification and resulting valuation for each of those years to the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals ("BOTA"), followed by an appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. However, CRNF fully accrued and paid the property taxes the county claimed were owed for the years ended December 31, 2008 through 2012. The Kansas Court of Appeals, in a memorandum opinion dated August 9, 2013, reversed the BOTA decision in part and remanded the case to BOTA, instructing BOTA to classify each asset on an asset by asset basis instead of making a broad determination that the entire plant was real property as BOTA did originally. The County filed a motion for rehearing with the Kansas Court of Appeals and a petition for review with the Kansas Supreme Court, both of which have been denied.

In March 2015, BOTA concluded that based upon an asset by asset determination, a substantial majority of the assets in dispute will be classified as personal property for the 2008 tax year. CRNF and the County next will submit evidence of valuation to BOTA with respect to the real property, following which, BOTA will issue its final decision. No amounts have been received or recognized in these consolidated financial statements related to the 2008 property tax matter or BOTA’s decision.

On February 25, 2013, the County and CRNF agreed to a settlement for tax years 2009 through 2012, which has lowered and will lower CRNF's property taxes by about $10.7 million per year (as compared to the 2012 tax year) for tax years 2013 through 2016 based on current mill levy rates. In addition, the settlement provides the County will support CRNF's application before BOTA for a ten year tax exemption for the UAN expansion. Finally, the settlement provides that CRNF will continue its appeal of the 2008 reclassification and reassessment as discussed above. During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, CRNF recognized approximately $1.3 million, $1.3 million and $1.4 million, respectively, in property tax expense included in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization).

Rentech Nitrogen Mergers Litigation

On August 29, 2015, Mike Mustard, a purported unitholder of Rentech Nitrogen, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the public unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech, Inc., CVR Partners, DSHC, LLC, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2, and the members of the board of directors of Rentech Nitrogen GP (the "Rentech Nitrogen Board"), in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Mustard Lawsuit"). The Mustard Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the consideration offered by CVR Partners is unfair and inadequate and that, by pursuing a transaction that is the result of an allegedly conflicted and unfair process, certain of the defendants have breached their duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen, and are engaging in self-dealing. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the director defendants: (i) failed to take steps to maximize the value of Rentech Nitrogen to its public shareholders, (ii) failed to properly value Rentech Nitrogen, and (iii) ignored or did not protect against the numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the proposed transaction. The Mustard Lawsuit also alleges that Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech, Inc., CVR Partners, DSHC, LLC, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 aided and abetted the director defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary duties.

On October 6, 2015, Jesse Sloan, a purported unitholder of Rentech Nitrogen, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the public unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, CVR Partners, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2, and the members of the Rentech Nitrogen Board, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Sloan Lawsuit"). The Sloan Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the attempted sale of Rentech Nitrogen to CVR Partners was conducted by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that (i) Rentech Nitrogen GP and the Rentech Nitrogen Board breached their obligations under the partnership agreement and their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by causing Rentech Nitrogen to enter into the merger agreement and failing to disclose material information to unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen, (ii) the Rentech Nitrogen Board violated fiduciary duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen based primarily on allegations of inadequate consideration, restrictive deal protection devices and improper disclosure, (iii) each of the defendants aided and abetted in the foregoing breaches described in items (i) and (ii), and (iv) Rentech Nitrogen and the Rentech Nitrogen Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 thereunder based on improper disclosure contained in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-206982), which was originally filed with the SEC by CVR Partners on September 17, 2015.

Among other remedies, the plaintiffs in these actions seek to enjoin the mergers and seek unspecified money damages. The lawsuits are at a preliminary state, and the outcome of any such litigation is uncertain. An adverse ruling in these actions may cause the mergers to be delayed or not be completed, which could cause the Partnership not to realize some or all of the anticipated benefits of the mergers. No amounts have been recognized in these consolidated financial statements regarding the lawsuits.

On February 1, 2016, the parties to the Mustard Lawsuit and the Sloan Lawsuit entered into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) providing for the proposed settlement of the lawsuits. While the defendants believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of further litigation, they have agreed, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed mergers. The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Rentech Nitrogen’s unitholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the Court, it will resolve and release all claims by unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen challenging any aspect of the proposed mergers, the merger agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, including in the prospectus and definitive proxy statement, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to such unitholders prior to final approval of the proposed settlement. In addition, in connection with the proposed settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs’ counsel will file a petition in the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to be paid by Rentech Nitrogen or its successor. The proposed settlement is also contingent upon, among other things, the mergers becoming effective under Delaware law. There can be no assurance that the Court will approve the proposed settlement contemplated by the MOU. In the event that the proposed settlement is not approved and such conditions are not satisfied, the defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the allegations in the lawsuits.

Environmental, Health, and Safety ("EHS") Matters

CRNF is subject to various stringent federal, state, and local 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. All liabilities are monitored and adjusted regularly as new facts emerge or changes in law or technology occur.

CRNF owns and operates a facility utilized for the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizers. Therefore, CRNF has exposure to potential EHS liabilities related to past and present EHS conditions at this location. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and related state laws, certain persons may be liable for the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. These persons can include the current owner or operator of property where a release or threatened release occurred, any persons who owned or operated the property when the release occurred, and any persons who disposed of, or arranged for the transportation or disposal of, hazardous substances at a contaminated property. Liability under CERCLA is strict, and under certain circumstances, joint and several, so that any responsible party may be held liable for the entire cost of investigating and remediating the release of hazardous substances.

CRNF is also subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local, environmental and health and safety laws and regulations governing the emission and release of hazardous substances into the environment, the treatment and discharge of waste water, and the storage, handling, use and transportation of nitrogen products. The ultimate impact of complying with evolving laws and regulations is not always clearly known or determinable due in part to the fact that the Partnership's operations may change over time and certain implementing regulations for laws, such as the federal Clean Air Act, have not yet been finalized, are under governmental or judicial review or are being revised. These laws and regulations could result in increased capital, operating and compliance costs.

Management periodically reviews and, as appropriate, revises its environmental accruals. Based on current information and regulatory requirements, management believes that the accruals established for environmental expenditures are adequate.

CRNF believes it is in substantial compliance with existing EHS rules and regulations. There can be no assurance that the EHS matters described above or other EHS matters which may develop in the future will not have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition, or results of operations of the Partnership.