XML 58 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments and Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies

Note 8: Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase and Sales Commitments — The following significant commitments include contracts entered into during the six months ended June 30, 2012:

Certain subsidiaries within the Chemical Business entered into contracts to purchase natural gas for anticipated production needs at the Cherokee Facility and our chemical production facility located in Pryor, Oklahoma (the “Pryor Facility”). Since these contracts are considered normal purchases because they provide for the purchase of natural gas that will be delivered in quantities expected to be used over a reasonable period of time in the normal course of business and are documented as such, these contracts are exempt from the accounting and reporting requirements relating to derivatives. At June 30, 2012, our purchase commitments under these contracts were for approximately 0.7 million MMBtu of natural gas through October 2012 at the weighted-average cost of $3.42 per MMBtu ($2.5 million) and a weighted-average market value of $2.82 per MMBtu ($2.0 million). See Note 9 — Derivatives, Hedges, Financial Instruments and Carbon Credits for our commitments relating to derivative contracts and carbon credits at June 30, 2012.

Legal Matters — Following is a summary of certain legal matters involving the Company.

A. Environmental Matters

Our operations are subject to numerous environmental laws (“Environmental Laws”) and to other federal, state and local laws regarding health and safety matters (“Health Laws”). In particular, the manufacture and distribution of chemical products are activities which entail environmental risks and impose obligations under the Environmental Laws and the Health Laws, many of which provide for certain performance obligations, substantial fines and criminal sanctions for violations. There can be no assurance that we will not incur material costs or liabilities in complying with such laws or in paying fines or penalties for violation of such laws. The Environmental Laws and Health Laws and enforcement policies thereunder relating to our Chemical Business have in the past resulted, and could in the future result, in compliance expenses, cleanup costs, penalties or other liabilities relating to the handling, manufacture, use, emission, discharge or disposal of effluents at or from our facilities or the use or disposal of certain of its chemical products. Historically, significant expenditures have been incurred by subsidiaries within our Chemical Business in order to comply with the Environmental Laws and Health Laws and are reasonably expected to be incurred in the future.

We will recognize a liability for the fair value of a conditional asset retirement obligation if the fair value of the liability can be reasonably estimated. We are obligated to manage certain discharge water outlets and monitor groundwater contaminants at our Chemical Business facilities should we discontinue the operations of a facility. We are also contractually obligated through at least December 2053 to pay a portion of the operating costs of a municipally owned wastewater pipeline currently being constructed, which will serve the El Dorado Facility. Additionally, we have certain facilities in our Chemical Business that contain asbestos insulation around certain piping and heated surfaces, which we plan to maintain or replace, as needed, with non-asbestos insulation through our standard repair and maintenance activities to prevent deterioration. Currently, there is insufficient information to estimate the fair value for most of our asset retirement obligations. In addition, we currently have no plans to discontinue the use of these facilities and the remaining life of the facilities is indeterminable. As a result, a liability for only a minimal amount relating to asset retirement obligations has been established at June 30, 2012. However, we will continue to review these obligations and record a liability when a reasonable estimate of the fair value can be made.

1. Discharge Water Matters

The El Dorado Facility owned by our subsidiary, EDC, generates process wastewater, which includes cooling tower and boiler water quality control streams, contact storm water (rain water inside the facility area which picks up contaminants) and miscellaneous spills and leaks from process equipment. The process water discharge, storm-water runoff and miscellaneous spills and leaks are governed by a state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) discharge water permit issued by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”), which permit is generally required to be renewed every five years. The El Dorado Facility is currently operating under a NPDES discharge water permit, which became effective in 2004 (“2004 NPDES permit”). In November 2010, a preliminary draft of a discharge water permit renewal, which contains more restrictive ammonia limits, was issued by the ADEQ for EDC’s review. EDC submitted comments to the ADEQ on the draft permit in December 2010.

The El Dorado Facility has generally demonstrated its ability to comply with applicable ammonia and nitrate permit limits, but has, from time to time, had difficulty demonstrating consistent compliance with the more restrictive dissolved minerals permit levels. As part of the El Dorado Facility’s long-term compliance plan, EDC has pursued a rulemaking and permit modification with the ADEQ. The ADEQ approved a rule change, but on August 31, 2011, the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (“EPA”) formally disapproved the rule change. On October 7, 2011, EDC filed a lawsuit against the EPA in the United States District Court, El Dorado, Arkansas, appealing the EPA’s decision disapproving the rule change. We do not believe this matter regarding the dissolved minerals will be an issue once the pipeline discussed below is operational.

The City of El Dorado, Arkansas (the “City”) received approval to construct a pipeline for disposal of wastewater generated by the City and by certain companies in the El Dorado area. However, in November 2011, opponents of the pipeline filed a lawsuit against the City and the pipeline consultants for alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act. We do not believe that this lawsuit will affect the City’s approval, or the City’s construction, of the pipeline. The companies intending to use the pipeline will contribute to the cost of construction and operation of the pipeline. Although EDC believes it can comply with the more restrictive permit limits without the pipeline, except for an occasional difficulty demonstrating consistent compliance with the more restrictive dissolved minerals permit limits, EDC will participate in the construction of the pipeline that will be owned by the City in order to ensure that EDC will be able to comply with future permit limits. During April 2011, certain companies, including EDC, and the City entered into a funding agreement and operating agreement, pursuant to which each party to the agreements has agreed to contribute to the cost of construction and the annual operating costs of the pipeline for the right to use the pipeline to dispose its wastewater. EDC anticipates its capital cost in connection with the construction of the pipeline will be approximately $4.0 million, of which $1.3 million has been capitalized as of June 30, 2012. The City plans to complete the construction of the pipeline by mid-2014. Once the pipeline is completed, EDC’s estimated share of the annual operating costs is to be $100,000 to $150,000. The initial term of the operating agreement is through December 2053.

In addition, the El Dorado Facility is currently operating under a consent administrative order (“2006 CAO”) that recognizes the presence of nitrate contamination in the shallow groundwater. The 2006 CAO required EDC to continue semi-annual groundwater monitoring, to continue operation of a groundwater recovery system and to submit a human health and ecological risk assessment to the ADEQ relating to the El Dorado Facility. The final remedy for shallow groundwater contamination, should any remediation be required, will be selected pursuant to a new consent administrative order and based upon the risk assessment. The cost of any additional remediation that may be required will be determined based on the results of the investigation and risk assessment, which costs (or range of costs) cannot currently be reasonably estimated. Therefore, no liability has been established at June 30, 2012, in connection with this matter.

2. Air Matters

The EPA has sent information requests to most, if not all, of the operators of nitric acid plants in the United States, including our El Dorado and Cherokee Facilities and the chemical production facility located in Baytown, Texas (the “Baytown Facility”) operated by our subsidiary, EDN, under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act as to construction and modification activities at each of these facilities over a period of years. These information requests were to enable the EPA to determine whether these facilities are in compliance with certain provisions of the Clean Air Act. If it were determined that the equipment at any of our chemical facilities does not meet, or has not met, the requirements of the Clean Air Act, our Chemical Business could be subject to penalties in an amount not to exceed $27,500 per day as to each facility not in compliance and be required to retrofit each facility with the “best available control technology.”

After a review by our Chemical Business of these facilities in obtaining information for the EPA pursuant to the EPA’s request, our Chemical Business management believes that certain facilities within our Chemical Business may be required to make capital improvements to emission equipment in order to comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. During the first quarter of 2012, our Chemical Business provided to the EPA a proposed global settlement offer in connection with this matter, which settlement offer would require implementation of additional pollution controls to be installed over a period of time in each of our ten affected nitric acid plants to achieve certain proposed emission rates. The proposal also offered to negotiate a modest civil penalty but did not provide an amount of any proposed civil penalty. Since the specific types of pollution controls necessary to meet the proposed emission rates at each plant have not been determined, the total capital cost to achieve the proposed emission rates has not been determined with any degree of accuracy; however, the total capital cost could be significant.

The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), on behalf of the EPA, has responded in writing to our proposed global settlement offer and advised in its response which of our proposals are acceptable and not acceptable and certain other provisions that the United States would require in a global settlement. The DOJ’s response also provided that they will require, among other things, that we pay an appropriate civil penalty to the United States and participating state parties, with the amount to be determined after the parties have reached agreement on the core components of a consent decree, and that any settlement is contingent upon the incorporation of the settlement terms into a definitive consent decree acceptable to the parties. Therefore a liability of $100,000 for potential civil penalties has been established at June 30, 2012, in connection with this matter. We are currently corresponding with the DOJ in an effort to resolve this matter.

 

3. Other Environmental Matters

In 2002, two subsidiaries within our Chemical Business, sold substantially all of their operating assets relating to a Kansas chemical facility (“Hallowell Facility”) but retained ownership of the real property. At December 31, 2002, even though we continued to own the real property, we did not assess our continuing involvement with our former Hallowell Facility to be significant and therefore accounted for the sale as discontinued operations. In connection with this sale, our subsidiary leased the real property to the buyer under a triple net long-term lease agreement. However, our subsidiary retained the obligation to be responsible for, and perform the activities under, a previously executed consent order to investigate the surface and subsurface contamination at the real property and a corrective action strategy based on the investigation. In addition, certain of our subsidiaries agreed to indemnify the buyer of such assets for these environmental matters. Based on the assessment discussed above, we account for transactions associated with the Hallowell Facility as discontinued operations.

The successor (“Chevron”) of a prior owner of the Hallowell Facility has agreed in writing, on a nonbinding basis and within certain other limitations, to pay and has been paying one-half of the costs of the interim measures relating to this matter as approved by the Kansas Department of Environmental Quality, subject to reallocation.

Our subsidiary and Chevron are pursuing with the state of Kansas a course of long-term surface and groundwater monitoring to track the natural decline in contamination. Currently, our subsidiary and Chevron are in the process of performing additional surface and groundwater testing. We have accrued for our allocable portion of costs for the additional testing, monitoring and risk assessments that could be reasonably estimated.

In addition, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (“KDHE”) notified our subsidiary and Chevron that the Hallowell Facility has been referred to the KDHE’s Natural Resources Trustee, who is to consider and recommend restoration, replacement and/or whether to seek compensation. KDHE will consider the recommendations in their evaluation. Currently, it is unknown what damages the KDHE would claim, if any. The ultimate required remediation, if any, is unknown. The nature and extent of a portion of the requirements are not currently defined and the associated costs (or range of costs) are not reasonably estimable.

At June 30, 2012, our allocable portion of the total estimated liability related to the Hallowell Facility of $208,000 has been established in connection with this matter. The estimated amount is not discounted to its present value. It is reasonably possible that a change in the estimate of our liability could occur in the near term.

B. Other Pending, Threatened or Settled Litigation

The Jayhawk Group

In November 2006, we entered into an agreement with Jayhawk Capital Management, LLC, Jayhawk Investments, L.P., Jayhawk Institutional Partners, L.P. and Kent McCarthy, the manager and sole member of Jayhawk Capital, (collectively, the “Jayhawk Group”), in which the Jayhawk Group agreed, among other things, that if we undertook, in our sole discretion, within one year from the date of agreement a tender offer for our Series 2 $3.25 convertible exchangeable Class C preferred stock (“Series 2 Preferred”) or to issue our common stock for a portion of our Series 2 Preferred pursuant to a private exchange, that they would tender or exchange an aggregate of no more than 180,450 shares of the 340,900 shares of the Series 2 Preferred beneficially owned by the Jayhawk Group, subject to, among other things, the entities owned and controlled by Jack E. Golsen, our chairman and chief executive officer (“Golsen”), and his immediate family, that beneficially own Series 2 Preferred only being able to exchange or tender approximately the same percentage of shares of Series 2 Preferred beneficially owned by them as the Jayhawk Group was able to tender or exchange under the terms of the agreement.

During 2007, we made a tender offer for our outstanding Series 2 Preferred at the rate of 7.4 shares of our common stock for each share of Series 2 Preferred so tendered. In July 2007, we redeemed the balance of our outstanding shares of Series 2 Preferred. Pursuant to its terms, the Series 2 Preferred was convertible into 4.329 shares of our common stock for each share of Series 2 Preferred. As a result of the redemption, the Jayhawk Group converted the balance of its Series 2 Preferred pursuant to the terms of the Series 2 Preferred in lieu of having its shares redeemed.

 

The Jayhawk Group has filed suit against us and Golsen alleging that the Jayhawk Group should have been able to tender all of its Series 2 Preferred pursuant to the tender offer, notwithstanding the above-described agreement, based on the following claims against us and Golsen:

 

  •  

fraudulent inducement and fraud,

 

  •  

violation of 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5,

 

  •  

violation of 17-12A501 of the Kansas Uniform Securities Act, and

 

  •  

breach of contract.

The Jayhawk Group seeks damages up to $12 million based on the additional number of common shares it allegedly would have received on conversion of all of its Series 2 Preferred through the February 2007 tender offer, plus punitive damages. In May 2008, the General Counsel for the Jayhawk Group offered to settle its claims against us and Golsen in return for a payment of $100,000, representing the approximate legal fees it had incurred investigating the claims at that time. Through counsel, we verbally agreed to the settlement offer and confirmed the agreement by e-mail. Afterward, the Jayhawk Group’s General Counsel purported to withdraw the settlement offer, and asserted that Jayhawk is not bound by any settlement agreement. We contend that the settlement agreement is binding on the Jayhawk Group. During September 2011, this case was tried before the court in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. We are awaiting the court’s decision in this matter. Our insurer, Chartis, a subsidiary of AIG, has agreed to defend this lawsuit on our behalf and to indemnify under a reservation of rights to deny liability under certain conditions. We have incurred expenses associated with this matter up to our insurance deductible of $250,000, and our insurer is paying defense costs in excess of our deductible in this matter. Although our insurer is defending this matter under a reservation of rights, we are not currently aware of any material issue in this case that would result in our insurer denying coverage. Therefore, no liability has been established at June 30, 2012 as a result of this matter.

Pryor Chemical Company

A subsidiary within our Chemical Business, Pryor Chemical Company (“PCC”) has filed lawsuits against certain vendors of PCC related to work performed at the Pryor Facility. The claims allege certain damages resulting from improperly performed work by the vendors and for lost profits and other costs as the result of downtime at the Pryor Facility. The total amount for damages and lost profits claimed is substantial but the amount and timing of the ultimate recovery is uncertain. As a result, any recovery from litigation or settlement of these claims is a gain contingency and will be recognized if, and when, realized or realizable and earned.

Other Claims and Legal Actions

We are also involved in various other claims and legal actions including claims for damages resulting from water leaks related to our Climate Control products and other product liability occurrences. Most of the product liability claims are covered by our general liability insurance, which generally includes a deductible of $250,000 per claim. For any claims or legal actions that we have assessed the likelihood of our liability as probable, we have recognized our estimated liability up to the applicable deductible. At June 30, 2012, our accrued general liability insurance claims were $755,000 and are included in accrued and other liabilities. It is possible that the actual development of claims could be different from our estimates but, after consultation with legal counsel, if those general liability insurance claims for which we have not recognized a liability were determined adversely to us, it would not have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.