XML 33 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.0.1

Note 11 - Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | NOTE 11: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Asset Retirement Obligations Kodak’s asset retirement obligations primarily relate to asbestos contained in buildings that Kodak owns. In many of the countries in which Kodak operates, environmental regulations exist that require Kodak to handle and dispose of asbestos in a special manner if a building undergoes major renovations or is demolished. Otherwise, Kodak is not required to remove the asbestos from its buildings. Kodak records a liability equal to the estimated fair value of its obligation to perform asset retirement activities related to the asbestos, computed using an expected present value technique, when sufficient information exists to calculate the fair value. Kodak does not have a liability recorded related to every building that contains asbestos because Kodak cannot estimate the fair value of its obligation for certain buildings due to a lack of sufficient information about the range of time over which the obligation may be settled through demolition, renovation or sale of the building. The following table provides asset retirement obligation activity (in millions):
|  | For the Year Ended December 31, |
|  | 2021 |  |  | 2020 |
Asset Retirement Obligations at start of period |  | $ | 41 |  |  | $ | 48 |
Liabilities incurred in the current period |  |  | — |  |  |  | 1 |
Liabilities settled in the current period |  |  | — |  |  |  | (9 | )
Accretion expense |  |  | — |  |  |  | 1 |
Revision in estimated cash flows |  |  | 1 |  |  |  | — |
Asset Retirement Obligations at end of period |  | $ | 42 |  |  | $ | 41 |
Other Commitments and Contingencies As of December 31, 2021 the Company had outstanding letters of credit of $46 million and $44 million issued under the Amended ABL Credit Agreement and the L/C Facility Agreement, respectively, as well as bank guarantees and letters of credit of $2 million, surety bonds in the amount of $28 million, and restricted cash of $61 million, primarily related to cash collateral for the outstanding letters of credit under the L/C Facility Agreement, to ensure the payment of possible casualty and workers compensation claims, environmental liabilities, legal contingencies, rental payments, and to support various customs, hedging, tax and trade activities. The restricted cash is recorded in Current assets and Restricted cash in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. Kodak’s Brazilian operations are involved in various litigation matters and have received or been the subject of numerous governmental assessments related to indirect and other taxes in various stages of litigation, as well as civil litigation and disputes associated with former employees and contract labor. The tax matters, which comprise the majority of the litigation matters, are primarily related to federal and state value-added taxes and income taxes. Kodak’s Brazilian operations are disputing these matters and intend to vigorously defend their position. Kodak routinely assesses these matters as to the probability of ultimately incurring a liability in its Brazilian operations and records its best estimate of the ultimate loss in situations where it assesses the likelihood of loss as probable. As of December 31, 2021, Kodak’s Brazilian Operations maintained accruals of approximately $2 million for claims aggregating approximately $114 million inclusive of interest and penalties where appropriate and the unreserved portion of these contingencies, inclusive of any related interest and penalties, for which there was at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, amounted to approximately $4 million. In connection with assessments in Brazil, local regulations may require Kodak to post security for a portion of the amounts in dispute. As of December 31, 2021, Kodak has posted security composed of $3 million of pledged cash reported within Restricted cash in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position and liens on certain Brazilian assets with a net book value of approximately $39 million. Generally, any encumbrances on the Brazilian assets would be removed to the extent the matter is resolved in Kodak's favor. On July 28, 2020, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (the “DFC”) announced (the “DFC Announcement”) the signing of a non-binding letter of interest to provide a subsidiary of the Company with a potential $765 million loan (the “DFC Loan”) to support the launch of Kodak Pharmaceuticals, an initiative that would manufacture pharmaceutical ingredients for essential generic drugs (the “DFC Pharmaceutical Project”). On August 13, 2020 Tiandong Tang commenced a class action lawsuit against the Company, its Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in Federal District Court in the District of New Jersey, and on August 26, 2020 Jimmie A. McAdams and Judy P. McAdams commenced a class action lawsuit against the Company and its Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York (collectively, the “Securities Class Actions”). The Securities Class Actions seek damages and other relief based on alleged violations of federal securities laws in the context of the DFC Announcement of the potential DFC Loan and DFC Pharmaceutical Project. The Securities Class Actions were transferred to the Federal District Court for the Western District of New York and were consolidated into a single proceeding (the “Consolidated Securities Class Action”) on June 22, 2021. Les Investissements Kiz Inc. and UAT Trading Service, Inc. were appointed by the court to serve as lead plaintiff for the Consolidated Securities Class Action on August 2, 2021, and the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on October 1, 2021 which added Kodak’s General Counsel and current and former members of its Board of Directors as additional defendants. The Company and individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Securities Class Action on December 14, 2021, and the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motions to dismiss on February 28, 2022. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the Consolidated Securities Class Action. On December 29, 2020 Robert Garfield commenced a class action lawsuit against the Company and current and former members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Mercer County, New Jersey seeking equitable relief and damages in favor of the Company based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company’s Board of Directors associated with alleged false and misleading proxy statement disclosures (including the successor New York lawsuit discussed below, the “Fiduciary Class Action”). The Company and each of the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the Fiduciary Class Action on April 13, 2021. The plaintiff in the Fiduciary Class Action voluntarily dismissed the Fiduciary Class Action without prejudice on May 26, 2021 and filed a lawsuit substantially similar to the dismissed New Jersey lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Monroe County on October 27, 2021, this time on behalf of a purported class of beneficial and record owners of stock of the Company as of March 26, 2020 who continue to own such stock through the present. The Company and individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the Fiduciary Class Action on January 19, 2022. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the Fiduciary Class Action. The Company has also received five requests under New Jersey law demanding, among other things, that the Company take certain actions in response to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty relating to option grants and securities transactions in the context of the DFC Announcement and alleged proxy statement disclosure deficiencies (the “Derivative Demands”). On May 19, 2021 Louis Peters, one of the persons making a Derivative Demand (“Peters”), commenced a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company against certain officers and current and former directors of the Company and the Company as a nominal defendant in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Monroe County seeking damages and equitable relief based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment resulting from stock trades, option grants and a charitable contribution in the context of the DFC Announcement of the potential DFC Loan and DFC Pharmaceutical Project (the “State Derivative Lawsuit”). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the State Derivative Lawsuit on August 23, 2021, and the Company and individual defendants filed motions to dismiss (or alternatively, in the case of the Company, a motion for summary judgment) in the State Derivative Lawsuit on October 22, 2021. The parties have agreed to stay the State Derivative Lawsuit pending the resolution of the Federal Derivative Lawsuit described below, which stay is subject to Court approval. On September 2, 2021 Herbert Silverberg, another person making a Derivative Demand (“Silverberg”), commenced a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company against one current and one former director of the Company and the Company as a nominal defendant in the Federal District Court for the Western District of New York seeking damages and equitable relief on a basis overlapping with the State Derivative Lawsuit and alleged proxy statement misrepresentations and omissions. On October 4, 2021 Peters commenced a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company against the same parties named in the State Derivative Lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Western District of New York seeking damages and equitable relief on a basis overlapping with the State Derivative Lawsuit and alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The Federal derivative lawsuits filed by Silverberg and Peters were consolidated into a single proceeding (the “Federal Derivative Lawsuit”) on January 18, 2022, and Peters was appointed as lead plaintiff in the Federal Derivative Lawsuit. An amended consolidated complaint combining the allegations contained in the Federal derivative lawsuits filed by Silverberg and Peters was filed in the Federal Derivative Lawsuit on February 16, 2022. Additional shareholder derivative lawsuits may be brought based on the other Derivative Demands (any such lawsuits, collectively with the State Derivative Lawsuit, the Federal Derivative Lawsuit and the Fiduciary Class Action, the “Fiduciary Matters”). The Company, acting through a Special Committee of Independent Directors, previously determined that there was no merit to the claims alleged by the Derivative Demands made through the time of its determination (except with respect to the charitable contribution, which was not fully considered by the Special Committee). See the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on September 16, 2020. The Company, acting through a separate Special Litigation Committee of Independent Directors, concurred with the first Special Committee’s findings and further concluded it is not in the Company’s interest to bring or allow any other shareholder to assert any of the claims alleged by the State Derivative Lawsuit or Federal Derivative Lawsuit (with the exception of the Peters claim purportedly arising under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, which was not addressed as no demand was made with respect to such claim). The second Special Litigation Committee will carefully review any other additional complaints constituting Fiduciary Matters which may be filed. The DFC Announcement has also prompted investigations by several congressional committees, the SEC and the New York Attorney General’s office. The Company has cooperated in those investigations. As previously reported, the Attorney General of the State of New York (the “NYAG”) has threatened to file a lawsuit against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer alleging violations of New York State’s Martin Act (the “Threatened Claim”). In connection with the Threatened Claim, on June 15, 2021 the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County issued an order providing for additional document production by the Company to the NYAG and the taking by the NYAG of investigative testimony of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel. The Company has completed its document production and its officers provided the testimony as contemplated by such order on October 8, 2021 and October 1, 2021, respectively. The Company is in preliminary discussions with the NYAG regarding a potential resolution of the Threatened Claim; however, there can be no assurance that those discussions will lead to a resolution. If the Threatened Claim is not resolved and is ultimately brought by the NYAG, the Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the Threatened Claim. In addition, Kodak is involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations, remediations and proceedings, including, from time to time, commercial, customs, employment, environmental, tort and health and safety matters, which are being handled and defended in the ordinary course of business. Kodak is also subject, from time to time, to various assertions, claims, proceedings and requests for indemnification concerning intellectual property, including patent infringement suits involving technologies that are incorporated in a broad spectrum of Kodak’s products. These matters are in various stages of investigation and litigation and are being vigorously defended. Based on information currently available, Kodak does not believe that it is probable that the outcomes in any of these matters, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and judgments could be rendered or settlements entered that could adversely affect Kodak’s operating results or cash flows in a particular period. Kodak routinely assesses all of its litigation and threatened litigation as to the probability of ultimately incurring a liability and records its best estimate of the ultimate loss in situations where it assesses the likelihood of loss as probable.

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 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: 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=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: 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=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration