XML 74 R31.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Commitments, Contingencies and Legal Proceedings | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments, Contingencies and Legal Proceedings |
22. | COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Contractual Commitments The following table summarizes the minimum annual payments due on noncancelable operating leases and other similar contractual obligations having initial or remaining terms in excess of one year:
In thousands |  |  | Leases |  |  |  | Other |
2014 |  | $ | 6,648 |  |  | $ | 71,816 |
2015 |  |  | 4,481 |  |  |  | 23,245 |
2016 |  |  | 2,560 |  |  |  | 20,959 |
2017 |  |  | 1,654 |  |  |  | 103 |
2018 |  |  | 755 |  |  |  | 95 |
Thereafter |  |  | 162 |  |  |  | 95 |
Other contractual obligations primarily represent minimum purchase commitments under energy supply contracts and other purchase obligations. At December 31, 2013, required minimum annual payments due under operating leases and other similar contractual obligations aggregated $16.3 million and $116.3 million, respectively. Fox River – Neenah, Wisconsin Background. We have significant uncertainties associated with environmental claims arising out of the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) in sediments in the lower Fox River, on which our former Neenah facility was located, and in the Bay of Green Bay Wisconsin (collectively, the “Site”). The United States, the State of Wisconsin, and two Indian tribes (collectively, the “Governments”) seek to require (a) a cleanup of the Site (“response actions”), (b) reimbursement of cleanup costs (“response costs”), and (c) natural resource damages (“NRDs”). They claim that we, together with seven other entities that have been formally notified that they are potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) under CERCLA for response costs or NRDs, are jointly and severally responsible under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”) for those response actions, response costs, and NRDs, all of which may total in excess of $1 billion. The PRPs consist of us, Appvion, Inc. (formerly known as Appleton Papers Inc.), CBC Coating, Inc. (formerly known as Riverside Paper Corporation), Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, L.P. (formerly known as Fort James Operating Company), Menasha Corporation, NCR Corporation (“NCR”), U.S. Paper Mills Corp., and WTM I Company. The Governments have identified manufacturing and recycling of NCR®-brand carbonless copy paper as the principal source of the PCBs in sediments at the Site. Our predecessor, the Bergstrom Paper Company, and later we operated a deinking paper mill in Neenah, Wisconsin. This mill received NCR®-brand carbonless copy paper in its furnish and discharged PCBs to Little Lake Butte des Morts, an impoundment of the river at the upstream end of the Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has divided the Site into five “operable units”, including the most upstream (“OU1”) and four downstream reaches of the river and bay (“OU2-5”). OU1 extends from primarily Lake Winnebago to the dam at Appleton, and is comprised of Little Lake Butte des Morts. The Neenah Facility discharged its wastewater into this portion of the site. We have resolved our liability for response actions and response costs associated with the permanent cleanup of Little Lake Butte des Morts through a consent decree, and amendments, entered in United States v. P.H. Glatfelter Co., No. 2:03-cv-949-LA (E.D. Wis.). Together with WTM I Company and with assistance from Menasha Corporation, we have completed that cleanup except for on-going operation and maintenance. In November 2007, the EPA issued a unilateral administrative order for remedial action (“UAO”) to us and to seven other respondents directing us to implement the cleanup of the Site downstream of Little Lake Butte des Morts. Since that time, the district court has held that one of the respondents, Appvion, is not liable for this Site. In addition, the United States and the State of Wisconsin have entered into a settlement with another respondent, Georgia-Pacific LLP (“GP”), limiting GP’s responsibility to the downstream-most three miles of the river. Work has proceeded to implement the UAO, mostly funded by NCR and its indemnitors. In January 2008, two of the UAO respondents, NCR and Appleton Papers Inc. (now known as Appvion), brought two actions, consolidated under the caption Appleton Papers Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., No. 2:08-cv-16-WCG (E.D. Wis.) (“Whiting Litigation”), that ultimately involved us and more than two dozen parties in litigation to allocate among the parties the responsibility for response actions, response costs, and NRDs for this Site. Most of the parties responsible for relatively small discharges of PCBs settled with the Governments, resolving their liability. On June 27, 2013, the district court entered a final judgment that (a) neither NCR nor Appvion may pursue any other party for contribution, (b) NCR owes us and the other non-settling parties “full contribution” for any amounts we may have to pay on account of response actions or response costs downstream of Little Lake Butte des Morts or on account of NRDs, (c) NCR is not liable for response costs, response actions, or NRDs in Little Lake Butte des Morts, and (d) NCR owes us reimbursement of $4.28 million in costs we incurred in the past. NCR and Appvion have appealed that judgment. We have filed a cross-appeal of that judgment (as have several other defendants), challenging those portions of the judgment with which we disagree, including the ruling that NCR is not liable for response costs, response actions, or NRDs in Little Lake Butte des Morts. Until the Whiting Litigation judgment is affirmed on appeal, all past and future costs or damages incurred by any person remain the subject of litigation against us. In October 2010, the United States and the State of Wisconsin sued us and thirteen other defendants to recover an injunction requiring the UAO respondents to complete the response actions required by the UAO and all parties to reimburse past and future response costs incurred by the Governments as well as to pay NRDs. That case is captioned United States v. NCR Corp., No. 1:10-cv-910-WCG (E.D. Wis.) (“Government Action”). To date, litigation of the Government Action has been limited to the United States’ claim against the UAO respondents for a mandatory injunction to require implementation of the remaining work under the UAO, that is, completion of the remedy in the 33 miles of the river downstream of Little Lake Butte des Morts. Following a trial in December 2012, on May 1, 2013, the district court granted that injunction (“May 2013 Order”). The May 2013 Order directs the Company “jointly and severally” along with three other defendants that are also enjoined (NCR, WTM I Company, and Menasha Corporation) to comply with the UAO. An accompanying declaratory judgment declares the Company and those three defendants jointly and severally liable with three additional defendants (Georgia-Pacific, LLP, U.S. Paper Mills, Inc., and CBC Coatings, Inc.) that have entered into agreements with the United States governing those parties’ compliance with the UAO. The district court has denied NCR’s motion to require us to contribute to compliance with the injunction. We have appealed the May 2013 Order, as have NCR, WTM I, and Menasha. Cost estimates. Estimates of the Site remediation change over time as we, or others, gain additional data and experience at the Site. In addition, disagreement exists over the likely costs for some of this work. Based upon estimates made by the Governments and independent estimates commissioned by various potentially responsible parties, we have no reason to disagree with the Governments’ assertion that total past and future response costs and NRDs at this site may exceed $1 billion and that $1.5 billion is a reasonable “outside estimate.” Much of that amount has already been incurred. As described below, some of that amount is NRDs. The parties implementing the response action under the UAO in the downstream part of the river estimate the cost of work done in 2013 and the future cost of work yet to be done totals approximately $360 million. The Governments seek to have that work done at a rate estimated to cost approximately $70 million each year from 2013 through 2016, and at lower rates afterward. NRDs. The Governments’ NRD assessment documents claimed that we are jointly and severally responsible for NRDs with a value between $176 million and $333 million. The Governments now claim that this range should be inflated to 2009 dollars and then certain unreimbursed past assessment costs should be added, so that the range of their claim would be $287 million to $423 million. We deny liability for most of these NRDs and believe that even if anyone is liable, that we are not jointly and severally liable for the full amount. The May 2013 Order does not determine whether liability for NRDs would be joint and several. Moreover, we believe that the Natural Resource Trustees may not legally pursue this claim at this late date, as the limitations period for NRD claims is three years from discovery. Reserves for the Site. As of December 31, 2013, our reserve for the Site, including our remediation and ongoing monitoring obligations in Little Lake Butte des Morts, our share of remediation of the rest of the Site, NRDs associated with PCB contamination at the Site and all pending, threatened or asserted and unasserted claims against us relating to PCB contamination at the Site totaled $16.3 million. Of our total reserve for the Fox River, $0.1 million is recorded in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets under the caption “Environmental liabilities” and the remainder is recorded under the caption “Other long term liabilities.” Although we believe that amounts already funded by us and WTM I to implement the Little Lake Butte des Morts remedy are adequate and no payments have been required since January 2009, there can be no assurance that these amounts will in fact suffice. WTM I has filed a bankruptcy petition in the Bankruptcy Court in Richmond; accordingly, there can be no assurance that WTM I will be able to fulfill its obligation to pay half of any additional costs, if required. We do not believe that we will be allocated a significant percentage share of liability in any final equitable allocation of the response costs and NRDs. The accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include reserves for defense costs for the Whiting Litigation, the Government Action, or any future defense costs related to our involvement at the Site, which could be significant. In setting our reserve for the Site, we have assessed our legal defenses, including our successful defenses to the allegations made in the Whiting Litigation and the determination in the Whiting Litigation that NCR owes us “full contribution” for response costs and NRDs that we may become obligated to pay except in OU1, and assumed that we will not bear the entire cost of remediation or damages to the exclusion of other known parties at the Site, who are also potentially jointly and severally liable. The existence and ability of other parties to participate has also been taken into account in setting our reserve, and is generally based on our evaluation of recent publicly available financial information on certain of the responsible parties and any known insurance, indemnity or cost sharing agreements between responsible parties and third parties. In addition, our assessment is based upon the magnitude, nature, location and circumstances associated with the various discharges of PCBs to the river and the relationship of those discharges to identified contamination. We will continue to evaluate our exposure and the level of our reserves, including, but not limited to, our potential share of the costs and NRDs, if any, associated with the Site. The amount and timing of future expenditures for environmental compliance, cleanup, remediation and personal injury, NRDs and property damage liabilities cannot be ascertained with any certainty due to, among other things, the unknown extent and nature of any contamination, the response actions that may ultimately be required, the availability of remediation equipment and landfill space, and the number and financial resources of any other PRPs. Other Information. The Governments have published studies estimating the amount of PCBs discharged by each identified potentially responsible party’s (“PRP’s”) facility to the lower Fox River and Green Bay. These reports estimate our Neenah mill’s share of the mass of PCBs discharged to be as high as 27%. The district court in its May 2013 Order found the discharge mass estimates used in these studies not to be accurate. We believe that the Neenah mill’s absolute and relative contribution of PCB mass is significantly lower than the estimates set forth in these studies. The trial court in the Government Action has found that the Neenah mill discharged an unknown amount of PCBs. In any event, based upon the rulings in the Whiting Litigation and the Government Action, neither of which endorsed an equitable allocation in proportion to the mass of PCBs discharged, we continue to believe that an allocation in proportion to mass of PCBs discharged would not constitute an equitable allocation of the potential liability for the contamination at the Fox River. We contend that other factors, such as the location of contamination, the location of discharge, and a party’s role in causing discharge, must be considered in order for the allocation to be equitable. In the 1990s, we entered into interim cost-sharing agreements with six of the other PRPs, which provided for those PRPs to share certain costs relating to scientific studies of PCBs discharged at the Site (“Interim Cost Sharing Agreements”). These Interim Cost Sharing Agreements do not establish the final allocation of remediation costs incurred at the Site. Based upon our evaluation of the rulings in the Whiting Litigation as well as the volume, nature and location of the various discharges of PCBs at the Site and the relationship of those discharges to identified contamination, we believe our allocable share of liability at the Site is less than our share of costs under the Interim Cost Sharing Agreements. Range of Reasonably Possible Outcomes. Our analysis of the range of reasonably possible outcomes is derived from all available information, including but not limited to decisions of the courts, official documents such as records of decision, discussions with the United States and other parties, as well as legal counsel and engineering consultants. Based on our analysis of the current records of decision and cost estimates for work to be performed at the Site, we believe that it is reasonably possible that our costs associated with the Fox River matter may exceed our cost estimates and the aggregate amounts accrued for the Fox River matter by amounts that are insignificant or that could range up to $275 million over an undeterminable period that could range beyond 10 years. We believe that the likelihood of an outcome in the upper end of the monetary range is significantly less than other possible outcomes within the range and that the possibility of an outcome in excess of the upper end of the monetary range is remote. The rulings in our favor in the Whiting Litigation, if sustained on appeal, suggest that outcomes in the upper end of the monetary range have become somewhat less likely, while adverse rulings on some issues in the Whiting Litigation and the Government Action and increases in cost estimates for some of the work may make an outcome in the upper end of the range more likely. The Company also believes that the effect of reading the Whiting Litigation decisions together with the May 2013 Order requires the ongoing compliance with the UAO to be funded by NCR, or to the extent that the Company is required to provide any such funding, that NCR will be required to reimburse the Company. There can be no assurance, however, that the May 2013 Order will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operation. Summary. Our current assessment is that we will be able to manage this environmental matter without a long-term, material adverse impact on the Company. This matter could, however, at any particular time or for any particular year or years, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and/or results of operations or could result in a default under our debt covenants. Moreover, there can be no assurance that our reserves will be adequate to provide for future obligations related to this matter, that our share of costs and/or damages will not exceed our available resources, or that those obligations will not have a long-term, material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. Should a court grant the United States or the State of Wisconsin relief that requires us individually either to perform directly or to contribute significant amounts towards remedial action downstream of Little Lake Butte des Morts or to NRDs, those developments could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and results of operations and might result in a default under our loan covenants.

X
- 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://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