XML 83 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 17—Commitments and contingencies: Lead pigment litigation—NL NL’s former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint. NL, other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint (together, the “former pigment manufacturers”), and the Lead Industries Association (LIA), which discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims. The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for educational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seek compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages are generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages are unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law. A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the plaintiffs. We believe that these actions are without merit, and we intend to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and to defend against all actions vigorously. We do not believe it is probable that we have incurred any liability with respect to all of the lead pigment litigation cases to which we are a party, and liability to us that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because:
· | NL has never settled any of the market share, risk contribution, intentional tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, or statutory cases,
· | no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been entered against NL, and
· | NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a twenty-year period for which we were previously a party and for which we have been dismissed without any finding of liability.
Accordingly, we have not accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases. In addition, we have determined that liability to us which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated because there is no prior history of a loss of this nature on which an estimate could be made and there is no substantive information available upon which an estimate could be based. New cases may continue to be filed against us. We cannot assure you that we will not incur liability in the future in respect of any of the pending or possible litigation in view of the inherent uncertainties involved in court and jury rulings. In the future, if new information regarding such matters becomes available to us (such as a final, non-appealable adverse verdict against us or otherwise ultimately being found liable with respect to such matters), at that time we would consider such information in evaluating any remaining cases then-pending against us as to whether it might then have become probable we have incurred liability with respect to these matters, and whether such liability, if any, could have become reasonably estimable. The resolution of any of these cases could result in the recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse impact on our net income for the interim or annual period during which such liability is recognized and a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition and liquidity. In one of these lead pigment cases, in April 2000 we were served with a complaint in County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657) brought by a number of California government entities against the former pigment manufacturers, the LIA and certain paint manufacturers. The County of Santa Clara sought to recover compensatory damages for funds the plaintiffs have expended or will in the future expend for medical treatment, educational expenses, abatement or other costs due to exposure to, or potential exposure to, lead paint, disgorgement of profit, and punitive damages. In July 2003, the trial judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all remaining claims. Plaintiffs appealed and the intermediate appellate court reinstated public nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and fraud claims in March 2006. A fourth amended complaint was filed in March 2011 on behalf of The People of California by the County Attorneys of Alameda, Ventura, Solano, San Mateo, Los Angeles and Santa Clara, and the City Attorneys of San Francisco, San Diego and Oakland. That complaint alleged that the presence of lead paint created a public nuisance in each of the prosecuting attorney jurisdictions and seeks its abatement. In July and August 2013, the case was tried. In January 2014, the Judge issued a judgment finding us, The Sherwin Williams Company and ConAgra jointly and severally liable for the abatement of lead paint in pre-1980 homes, and ordered the defendants to pay an aggregate $1.15 billion to the State of California to fund such abatement. NL believes that this judgment is inconsistent with California law and is unsupported by the evidence, and we will appeal in the first quarter of 2014. In February 2014, NL filed a motion for a new trial. The Santa Clara case is unique in that this is the second time that an adverse verdict in the lead pigment litigation has been entered against NL (the first adverse verdict against NL was ultimately overturned on appeal). We have concluded that the likelihood of a loss in this case has not reached a standard of “probable” as contemplated by ASC 450, given (i) the substantive, substantial and meritorious grounds on which the adverse verdict in the Santa Clara case will be appealed (assuming our motion for a new trial is not granted), (ii) the uniqueness of the Santa Clara verdict (i.e. no final, non-appealable verdicts have ever been rendered against us, or any of the other former lead pigment manufacturers, based on the public nuisance theory of liability or otherwise), and (ii) the rejection of the public nuisance theory of liability as it relates to lead pigment matters in many other jurisdictions (no jurisdiction in which a plaintiff has asserted a public nuisance theory of liability has ever successfully been upheld). In addition, liability that may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated, as NL continues to have no basis on which an estimate of liability could be made, as discussed above. However, as with any legal proceeding, there is no assurance that any of any appeal would be successful, and it is reasonably possible, based on the outcome of the appeals process, that NL may in the future incur some liability resulting in the recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position and liquidity. Environmental matters and litigation Our operations are governed by various environmental laws and regulations. Certain of our businesses are and have been engaged in the handling, manufacture or use of substances or compounds that may be considered toxic or hazardous within the meaning of applicable environmental laws and regulations. As with other companies engaged in similar businesses, certain of our past and current operations and products have the potential to cause environmental or other damage. We have implemented and continue to implement various policies and programs in an effort to minimize these risks. Our policy is to maintain compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations at all of our plants and to strive to improve environmental performance. From time to time, we may be subject to environmental regulatory enforcement under U.S. and non-U.S. statutes, the resolution of which typically involves the establishment of compliance programs. It is possible that future developments, such as stricter requirements of environmental laws and enforcement policies, could adversely affect our production, handling, use, storage, transportation, sale or disposal of such substances. We believe that all of our facilities are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws. Certain properties and facilities used in our former operations, including divested primary and secondary lead smelters and former mining locations, are the subject of civil litigation, administrative proceedings or investigations arising under federal and state environmental laws and common law. Additionally, in connection with past operating practices, we are currently involved as a defendant, potentially responsible party (PRP) or both, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (CERCLA), and similar state laws in various governmental and private actions associated with waste disposal sites, mining locations, and facilities that we or our predecessors, our subsidiaries or their predecessors currently or previously owned, operated or used, certain of which are on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund National Priorities List or similar state lists. These proceedings seek cleanup costs, damages for personal injury or property damage and/or damages for injury to natural resources. Certain of these proceedings involve claims for substantial amounts. Although we may be jointly and severally liable for these costs, in most cases we are only one of a number of PRPs who may also be jointly and severally liable, and among whom costs may be shared or allocated. In addition, we are also a party to a number of personal injury lawsuits filed in various jurisdictions alleging claims related to environmental conditions alleged to have resulted from our operations. Obligations associated with environmental remediation and related matters are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons including the:
· | complexity and differing interpretations of governmental regulations,
· | number of PRPs and their ability or willingness to fund such allocation of costs,
· | financial capabilities of the PRPs and the allocation of costs among them,
· | solvency of other PRPs,
· | multiplicity of possible solutions,
· | number of years of investigatory, remedial and monitoring activity required,
· | uncertainty over the extent, if any, to which our former operations might have contributed to the conditions allegedly giving rise to such personal injury, property damage, natural resource and related claims and
· | number of years between former operations and notice of claims and lack of information and documents about the former operations.
In addition, the imposition of more stringent standards or requirements under environmental laws or regulations, new developments or changes regarding site cleanup costs or the allocation of costs among PRPs, solvency of other PRPs, the results of future testing and analysis undertaken with respect to certain sites or a determination that we are potentially responsible for the release of hazardous substances at other sites, could cause our expenditures to exceed our current estimates. We cannot assure you that actual costs will not exceed accrued amounts or the upper end of the range for sites for which estimates have been made, and we cannot assure you that costs will not be incurred for sites where no estimates presently can be made. Further, additional environmental and related matters may arise in the future. If we were to incur any future liability, this could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements, results of operations and liquidity. We record liabilities related to environmental remediation and related matters when estimated future expenditures are probable and reasonably estimable. We adjust such accruals as further information becomes available to us or as circumstances change. Unless the amounts and timing of such estimated future expenditures are fixed and reasonably determinable, we generally do not discount estimated future expenditures to their present value due to the uncertainty of the timing of the payout. We recognize recoveries of costs from other parties, if any, as assets when their receipt is deemed probable. At December 31, 2012 and 2013, we have not recognized any receivables for recoveries. We do not know and cannot estimate the exact time frame over which we will make payments for our accrued environmental and related costs. The timing of payments depends upon a number of factors, including but not limited to the timing of the actual remediation process; which in turn depends on factors outside of our control. At each balance sheet date, we estimate the amount of our accrued environmental and related costs which we expect to pay within the next twelve months, and we classify this estimate as a current liability. We classify the remaining accrued environmental costs as a noncurrent liability. The table below presents a summary of the activity in our accrued environmental costs during the past three years. The amount charged to expense is included in corporate expense on our C onsolidated Statements of Operations.
| Years ended December 31, |
| 2011 |  |  | 2012 |  |  | 2013 |
| (In millions) |
Balance at the beginning of the year | $ | 42.3 |  |  | $ | 43.2 |  |  | $ | 50.2 |
Additions charged to expense, net |  | 11.3 |  |  |  | 15.0 |  |  |  | 69.0 |
Acquired |  | — |  |  |  | — |  |  |  | 7.0 |
Payments, net |  | (10.4 | ) |  |  | (8.1 | ) |  |  | (3.4 | )
Changes in currency exchange rates |  | — |  |  |  | .1 |  |  |  | (.1 | )
Balance at the end of the year | $ | 43.2 |  |  | $ | 50.2 |  |  | $ | 122.7 |
Amounts recognized in our Consolidated Balance Sheet at the end of the year: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Current liabilities | $ | 8.6 |  |  | $ | 7.6 |  |  | $ | 9.1 |
Noncurrent liabilities |  | 34.6 |  |  |  | 42.6 |  |  |  | 113.6 |
Total | $ | 43.2 |  |  | $ | 50.2 |  |  | $ | 122.7 |
NL—Of the $11.3 million net additions charged to expense in 2011, $5.6 million relates to certain payments which have been discounted to their present value because the timing and amounts of such payments are fixed and determinable. Such payments aggregate $6.0 million on an undiscounted basis ($2.0 million that was paid in 2012, $1.0 million that was paid in 2013 and $1.0 million due in each of 2014 through 2016) and were discounted to present value using a 3.0% discount rate. The aggregate $.4 million discount is being charged to expense using the interest method in 2011 through 2016, and the amount of such discount charged to expense in any individual year is not material. On a quarterly basis, NL evaluates the potential range of its liability for environmental remediation and related costs at sites where it has been named as a PRP or defendant. At December 31, 2013, NL had accrued approximately $114 million related to approximately 45 sites associated with remediation and related matters that it believes are at the present time and/or in their current phase reasonably estimable. The upper end of the range of reasonably possible costs to NL for remediation and related matters for which we believe it is possible to estimate costs is approximately $154 million, including the amount currently accrued. NL believes that it is not possible to estimate the range of costs for certain sites. At December 31, 2013, there were approximately 5 sites for which NL is not currently able to estimate a range of costs. For these sites, generally the investigation is in the early stages, and NL is unable to determine whether or not NL actually had any association with the site, the nature of its responsibility, if any, for the contamination at the site and the extent of contamination at and cost to remediate the site. The timing and availability of information on these sites is dependent on events outside of our control, such as when the party alleging liability provides information to us. At certain of these previously inactive sites, NL has received general and special notices of liability from the EPA and/or state agencies alleging that NL, sometimes with other PRPs, are liable for past and future costs of remediating environmental contamination allegedly caused by former operations. These notifications may assert that NL, along with any other alleged PRPs, are liable for past and/or future clean-up costs. As further information becomes available to us for any of these sites which would allow us to estimate a range of costs, we would at that time adjust our accruals. Any such adjustment could result in the recognition of an accrual that would have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements, results of operations and liquidity. Other—We have also accrued approximately $9.0 million at December 31, 2013 for other environmental cleanup matters. This accrual is near the upper end of the range of our estimate of reasonably possible costs for such matters. Insurance coverage claims We are involved in certain legal proceedings with a number of our former insurance carriers regarding the nature and extent of the carriers’ obligations to us under insurance policies with respect to certain lead pigment and asbestos lawsuits. The issue of whether insurance coverage for defense costs or indemnity or both will be found to exist for our lead pigment and asbestos litigation depends upon a variety of factors and we cannot assure you that such insurance coverage will be available. We have agreements with four former insurance carriers pursuant to which the carriers reimburse us for a portion of our future lead pigment litigation defense costs, and one such carrier reimburses us for a portion of our future asbestos litigation defense costs. We are not able to determine how much we will ultimately recover from these carriers for defense costs incurred by us because of certain issues that arise regarding which defense costs qualify for reimbursement. While we continue to seek additional insurance recoveries, we do not know if we will be successful in obtaining reimbursement for either defense costs or indemnity. Accordingly, we recognize insurance recoveries in income only when receipt of the recovery is probable and we are able to reasonably estimate the amount of the recovery. In addition to insurance recoveries discussed above, in September 2011 we reached a settlement with one of our insurance carriers in which they agreed to reimburse us for a portion of our past lead pigment litigation defense costs. Substantially all of the $16.9 million in insurance recoveries we recognized in 2011 relate to this settlement. In October 2005 we were served with a complaint in OneBeacon American Insurance Company v. NL Industries, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 603429-05). The plaintiff, a former insurance carrier, sought a declaratory judgment of its obligations to us under insurance policies issued to us by the plaintiff’s predecessor with respect to certain lead pigment lawsuits filed against us. In March 2006, the trial court denied our motion to dismiss. In April 2006, we filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s ruling, and in September 2007, the Supreme Court - Appellate Division (First Department) reversed and ordered that the OneBeacon complaint be dismissed. The Appellate Division did not dismiss the counterclaims and cross claims. In February 2006, we were served with a complaint in Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Millennium Holdings LLC et al. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 06/60026). The plaintiff, a former insurance carrier of ours, sought a declaratory judgment of its obligations to us under insurance policies issued to us by the plaintiff with respect to certain lead pigment lawsuits. This case is currently stayed. Prior to 2011, we reached partial settlements with the plaintiffs in the two cases discussed above, pursuant to which the two former insurance carriers paid us an aggregate of approximately $7.2 million in settlement of certain counter-claims related to past lead pigment and asbestos defense costs. In connection with these partial settlements, we agreed to dismiss the case captioned NL Industries, Inc. v. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, et al. (District Court for Dallas County, Texas, Case No. 05-11347), and in January 2009 we filed a notice of non-suit without prejudice in that matter. In March 2010, we filed a complaint in NL Industries, Inc. v. OneBeacon America Insurance Company (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 108881-2009), to address the remaining claims from the New York state cases. In December 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement with OneBeacon, pursuant to which they agreed to reimburse us for certain contested past lead pigment litigation costs in the amount of $3.9 million. In January 2014, we were served with a complaint in Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, et al v. NL Industries, Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 14/650103). The plaintiff, a former insurance carrier of ours, is seeking a declaratory judgment of its obligations to us under insurance policies issued to us by the plaintiff with respect to certain lead pigment lawsuits. The case is now proceeding in the trial court. We believe the action is without merit and intend to defend NL’s rights in this action vigorously. In February 2014, we were served with a complaint in Zurich American Insurance Company, as successor-in-interest to Zurich Insurance Company, U.S. Branch vs. NL Industries, Inc, and The People of the State of California, acting by and through county Counsels of Santa Clara, Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Solano and Ventura Counties and the city Attorneys of Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco, et al (Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No.: 1-14-CV-259924). The Plaintiff, a former insurance carrier of ours, is seeking an Order of Deposit Under C.C.P § 572. This case is now proceeding in the trial court. We intend to defend NL’s coverage rights in this action vigorously. Other litigation NL—NL has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by NL’s former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by NL. There are 1,130 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 1,643 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,298 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts’ medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters. Based on information available to us, including:
· | facts concerning historical operations,
· | the rate of new claims,
· | the number of claims from which we have been dismissed and
· | our prior experience in the defense of these matters.
We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us. Kronos—In March 2010, Kronos was served with two complaints which were subsequently consolidated as Haley Paint et al. v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District Court, for the District of Maryland, Case No. 1:10-cv-00318-RDB). A third plaintiff intervened into the case in July 2011. The defendants included Kronos, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Huntsman International LLC, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a Cristal). Plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased titanium dioxide in the United States directly from one or more of the defendants on or after March 1, 2002. The complaint alleged that the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which titanium dioxide was sold in the United States and engaged in other anticompetitive conduct. In May 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which plaintiffs opposed. In March 2011, the court denied the motion to dismiss. In February 2012, the plaintiffs submitted their motion for class certification, which defendants opposed. In August 2012, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and trial was set for September 2013. On September 10, 2013, and following the agreement by the three other defendants in the third quarter of 2013 to enter into settlement agreements with the class plaintiffs, Kronos also entered into a settlement agreement with the class plaintiffs, without admitting any fault or wrongdoing, and agreed to pay an aggregate of $35 million (payable in two installments at specified times, expected to occur by mid-2014). Following the service of the Class Action Fairness Notice and the Order of Final Approval from the court, we, and the other defendants, will be dismissed with prejudice from this matter. Selling, general and administrative expenses in the third quarter of 2013 includes a $35 million charge related to this settlement. See also Note 10. In March 2013, Kronos was served with the complaint, Los Gatos Mercantile, Inc. d/b/a Los Gatos Ace Hardware, et al v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:13-cv-01180-SI). The defendants include Kronos, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Huntsman International LLC and Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of indirect purchasers of titanium dioxide in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin that indirectly purchased titanium dioxide from one or more of the defendants on or after March 1, 2002. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which titanium dioxide was sold in the United States and engaged in other anticompetitive conduct. This matter had been stayed by the court pending a resolution in the Haley Paint Matter. The case is now proceeding in the trial court. We believe the action is without merit, will deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and intend to defend against the action vigorously. In November 2013, we were served with the complaint, The Valspar Corporation, et al v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District Court, for the District of Minnesota, Case No. 1:13-cv-03214-RHK-L1B). The defendants include us, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Huntsman International LLC, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a Cristal). Plaintiff opted out of the settlement in the original lawsuit, Haley Paint et al. v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al. (United States District Court, for the District of Maryland, Case No. 1:10-cv-00318-RDB) and filed its own lawsuit against the Defendants. The complaint alleged that the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which titanium dioxide was sold in the United States and engaged in other anticompetitive conduct. The case is now proceeding in the trial court. We believe the action is without merit, will deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and intend to defend against the action vigorously. WCS— Previously, the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club has filed various lawsuits in Texas District Court against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”). WCS has intervened in these lawsuits. These lawsuits challenge our by-product and low-level radioactive waste disposal licenses. Subsequently, the District Court upheld the TCEQ’s determination that the Sierra Club lacked standing to pursue a challenge to the by-product disposal license. The Sierra Club appealed. WCS’ by-product disposal license remains in effect pending resolution of the appeal. In May 2012, the same District Court subsequently held that TCEQ erred in denying Sierra Club’s request for an administrative contested case hearing regarding the low-level radioactive waste disposal license, and ordered the TCEQ to undertake a contested case hearing in which the Sierra Club could participate. Shortly thereafter, both the TCEQ and WCS appealed the District Court’s order with respect to the low-level radioactive waste disposal license, and the District Court’s order is suspended. WCS’ low-level radioactive waste disposal license remains in effect, pending resolution of this appeal. On the same day that WCS filed its appeal with regard to the District Court’s order with respect to its low-level radioactive waste disposal license, the Sierra Club filed another lawsuit in the same Texas District Court, challenging a routine TCEQ action relating to administration of the low-level radioactive waste disposal license. On March 7, 2014, the Third District of the Texas Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the courts do not have jurisdiction over Sierra Club’s lawsuit challenging the routine TCEQ action. The Court of Appeals dismissed Sierra Club’s lawsuit. The deadline for Sierra Club to petition for relief from the Texas Supreme Court has not yet passed. Additionally, the Sierra Club filed a petition for writ of injunction with the same Court of Appeals in Austin; that petition was denied. WCS believes all of these actions by the Sierra Club are without merit and that the Sierra Club has no proper standing to challenge any of its licenses and permits. This position has been reinforced by two recent Texas Supreme Court rulings narrowing the basis for a challenge to environmental permits. WCS intends to continue to defend against any and all such actions vigorously, and to continue to operate its West Texas facilities in accordance with the terms of its licenses and permits. Other—In addition to the litigation described above, we and our affiliates are involved in various other environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to our present and former businesses. In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items, although we do not expect any additional material insurance coverage for our environmental claims. We currently believe that the disposition of all of these various other claims and disputes, individually or in the aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the accruals already provided. Other matters Concentrations of credit risk—Sales of TiO 2 accounted for approximately 92% of our Chemicals Segment’s sales in 2011, and 90% in each of 2012 and 2013. The remaining sales result from the mining and sale of ilmenite ore (a raw material used in the sulfate pigment production process), and the manufacture and sale of iron-based water treatment chemicals and certain titanium chemical products (derived from co-products of the TiO 2 production processes). TiO 2 is generally sold to the paint, plastics and paper industries. Such markets are generally considered “quality-of-life” markets whose demand for TiO 2 is influenced by the relative economic well-being of the various geographic regions. Our Chemicals Segment sells TiO 2 to over 4,000 customers, with the top ten customers approximating 30% of net sales in 2011, 34% in each of 2012 and 2013. We did not have sales to a single customer comprising 10% or more of our net sales in 2011. In each of 2012 and 2013, one customer, Behr Process Corporation, accounted for approximately 10% of our Chemicals Segment’s net sales. The table below shows the approximate percentage of our TiO 2 sales by volume for our significant markets, Europe and North America, for the last three years.
| 2011 |  | 2012 |  | 2013
Europe | 53% |  | 47% |  | 49%
North America | 32% |  | 35% |  | 33%
Our Component Products Segment’s products are sold primarily in North America to original equipment manufacturers. The ten largest customers related to our Component Product’s continuing operations accounted for approximately 39% of sales in 2011, 38% in 2012, and 42% in 2013. Harley Davidson, a customer of the Component Products segment, accounted for approximately 13% of that segment’s total sales in 2011 and 12% in each of 2012, and 2013. San Mateo Postal Data, accounted for 13% of the Component Products Segment’s total sales in 2013. Our Waste Management Segment’s revenues consists of storage and disposal fees at our facility located in Andrews County, Texas. During 2013 we had sales to three customers that exceed 10% of our 2013 net sales: Tennessee Valley Authority (30%), Studsvik, Inc. (15%) and the Department of Energy (10%). Long-term contracts—Our Chemicals Segment has long-term supply contracts that provide for certain of our TiO 2 feedstock requirements through 2016. The agreements require Kronos to purchase certain minimum quantities of feedstock with minimum purchase commitments aggregating approximately $820 million over the term of the contracts in years subsequent to December 31, 2013. In addition, our Chemicals Segment has other long-term supply and service contracts that provide for various raw materials and services. These agreements require Kronos to purchase certain minimum quantities or services with minimum purchase commitments aggregating approximately $123 million at December 31, 2013. Operating leases—Our Chemicals Segment’s principal German operating subsidiary leases the land under its Leverkusen TiO 2 production facility pursuant to a lease with Bayer AG that expires in 2050. The Leverkusen facility itself, which our Chemicals Segment owns and which represents approximately one-third of its current TiO 2 production capacity, is located within Bayer’s extensive manufacturing complex. Kronos periodically establishes the amount of rent for the land lease associated with the Leverkusen facility by agreement with Bayer for periods of at least two years at a time. The lease agreement provides for no formula, index or other mechanism to determine changes in the rent for such land lease; rather, any change in the rent is subject solely to periodic negotiation between Bayer and Kronos. We recognize any change in the rent based on such negotiations as part of lease expense starting from the time such change is agreed upon by both parties, as any such change in the rent is deemed “contingent rentals” under GAAP. Under the terms of a master supply and services agreements a majority-owned subsidiary of Bayer provides raw materials, including chlorine, auxiliary and operating materials, utilities and services necessary to operate the Leverkusen facility. This agreement, as amended, expires in 2017 and will automatically renew for successive three year terms until terminated by either party upon one year’s prior notice. We also lease various other manufacturing facilities and equipment. Some of the leases contain purchase and/or various term renewal options at fair market and fair rental values, respectively. In most cases we expect that, in the normal course of business, such leases will be renewed or replaced by other leases. Net rent expense attributable to continuing operations approximated $13.3 million in 2011, $16.3 million in 2012 and $15.8 million in 2013. At December 31, 2013, future minimum payments under non-cancellable operating leases having an initial or remaining term of more than one year were as follows:
Years ending December 31, |  | Amount |
|  | (In millions) |
2014 |  | $ | 12.5 |
2015 |  |  | 10.4 |
2016 |  |  | 5.1 |
2017 |  |  | 3.6 |
2018 |  |  | 3.2 |
2019 and thereafter |  |  | 23.4 |
Total(1) |  | $ | 58.2 |
(1) | Approximately $18 million of the $58.2 million aggregate future minimum rental commitments at December 31, 2013 relates to Kronos’ Leverkusen facility lease discussed above. The minimum commitment amounts for such lease included in the table above for each year through the 2050 expiration of the lease are based upon the current annual rental rate as of December 31, 2013. As discussed above, any change in the rent is based solely on negotiations between Bayer and Kronos, and any such change in the rent is deemed “contingent rentals” under GAAP which is excluded from the future minimum lease payments disclosed above.
Income taxes—Prior to 2011, NL made certain pro-rata distributions to its stockholders in the form of shares of Kronos common stock. All of NL’s distributions of Kronos common stock were taxable to NL and NL recognized a taxable gain equal to the difference between the fair market value of the Kronos shares distributed on the various dates of distribution and NL’s adjusted tax basis in the shares at the dates of distribution. NL transferred shares of Kronos common stock to us in satisfaction of the tax liability related to NL’s gain on the transfer or distribution of these shares of Kronos common stock and the tax liability generated from the use of Kronos shares to settle the tax liability. To date, we have not paid the liability to Contran because Contran has not paid the liability to the applicable tax authority. The income tax liability will become payable to Contran, and by Contran to the applicable tax authority, when the shares of Kronos transferred or distributed by NL to us are sold or otherwise transferred outside the Contran Tax Group or in the event of certain restructuring transactions involving us. We have recognized deferred income taxes for our investment in Kronos common stock. We and Contran have agreed to a policy providing for the allocation of tax liabilities and tax payments as described in Note 1. Under applicable law, we, as well as every other member of the Contran Tax Group, are each jointly and severally liable for the aggregate federal income tax liability of Contran and the other companies included in the Contran Tax Group for all periods in which we are included in the Contran Tax Group. Contran has agreed, however, to indemnify us for any liability for income taxes of the Contran Tax Group in excess of our tax liability computed in accordance with the tax allocation policy. Financial assurance associated with Waste Management Segment—Our Waste Management Segment is required to provide certain financial assurances to the Texas government agencies with respect to the decommissioning obligations related to the its facility in West Texas. We and certain of our affiliates have provided or assisted us in providing such financial assurances, see Note 16. Other matters related to the financial assurance associated with our LLRW disposal facilities are discussed below:
· | A portion of WCS’ required financial assurance associated with its LLRW disposal facilities is in the form of a surety bond issued by a third-party insurance company on its behalf for the benefit of the state of Texas. The value of the surety bond at issuance was $20 million in 2011 and was increased to $23.4 in December 2012 and increased to $32.2 million in December 2013. As part of such surety bond, WCS is required to make quarterly cash payments into a collateral trust of 2.5% of the total value of the bonds which commenced in the fourth quarter of 2011. At December 31, 2013, we had made payments totaling $4.9 million, which is reflected as part of our noncurrent restricted cash on our Consolidated Balance Sheet.
· | During November of each of 2012 through 2016, WCS is required to make cash payments into another collateral trust or increase the $32.2 million surety bond discussed above for the benefit of the state of Texas in an aggregate of $12.35 million, plus an amount for the estimated increase in the required financial assurance amount associated with normal inflationary cost increases. In addition, in November 2016 WCS is required to make an additional cash payment of $119.5 million into this collateral trust. At that point, the collateral trust would be fully funded, and we would expect that we would only be required to make additional cash payments into the collateral trust to cover normal inflationary cost increases in order for the trust to remain fully funded. Until such time as we make the $119.5 million cash payment in November 2016, the aggregate market value of the marketable securities pledged on WCS’ behalf by Valhi (see Note 16) is required to be at least a specified minimum amount. In the event such aggregate market value were to become less than such specified minimum amount, then Valhi would either pledge additional marketable securities sufficient to cover any market-value deficiency, or we would be required to make a cash payment into the collateral trust to cover such market-value deficiency. During the fourth quarters of 2012 and 2013, we paid $18.0 million into the collateral trust, which is reflected as part of our noncurrent restricted cash on our Consolidated Balance Sheet.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration