XML 54 R32.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.1.900

Commitments, Contingencies and Legal Proceedings | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments, Contingencies and Legal Proceedings |
23. | 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 |
2016 |  | $ | 5,814 |  |  | $ | 75,497 |
2017 |  |  | 3,111 |  |  |  | 48,409 |
2018 |  |  | 2,107 |  |  |  | 5,679 |
2019 |  |  | 920 |  |  |  | 129 |
2020 |  |  | 514 |  |  |  | 74 |
Thereafter |  |  | 616 |  |  |  | 322 |
Other contractual obligations primarily represent minimum purchase commitments under energy supply contracts and other purchase obligations. At December 31, 2015, required minimum annual payments due under operating leases and other similar contractual obligations aggregated $13.1 million and $130.1 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”). Since the early 1990s, the United States, the State of Wisconsin and two Indian tribes (collectively, the “Governments”) have pursued a cleanup of a 39-mile stretch of river from Little Lake Butte des Morts into Green Bay and natural resource damages (“NRDs”). The United States notified the following parties (“PRPs”) of their potential responsibility to implement response actions, to pay response costs, and to compensate for NRDs at this site: us, Appvion, Inc. (formerly known as Appleton Papers Inc.), CBC Coating, Inc. (formerly known as Riverside Paper Corporation), Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, L.P. (“Georgia-Pacific”, formerly known as Fort James Operating Company), Menasha Corporation, NCR Corporation (“NCR”), U.S. Paper Mills Corp., and WTM I Company. As described below, many other parties have been joined in litigation. After giving effect to settlements reached with the Governments, the remaining PRPs exposed to continuing obligations to implement the remainder of the cleanup consist of us, Georgia-Pacific and NCR. The Site has been subject to certain studies and the parties conducted certain demonstration projects and completed certain interim cleanups. The permanent cleanup, known as a “remedial action” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”), consists of sediment dredging, installation of engineered caps, and placement of sand covers in various areas in the bed of the river. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has divided the Site into five “operable units”, including the most upstream portion of the Site on which our facility was located (“OU1”) and four downstream reaches of the river and bay (“OU2-5”). We and WTM I Company implemented the remedial action in OU1 under a consent decree with the Governments; Menasha Corporation made a financial contribution to that work. That project began in 2004 and the work is complete other than on-going monitoring and maintenance. For OU2-5, work has proceeded primarily under a Unilateral Administrative Order (“UAO”) issued in November 2007 by the EPA to us and seven other respondents. The remedial actions from 2007 through 2014 were funded primarily by NCR and its indemnitors, including Appvion, Inc. In 2015, we placed certain covering and capping in OU4b as a response to the Government’s demands at a cost of $9.7 million. Georgia Pacific and NCR funded work in 2015 pursuant to a proposed consent decree that the United States has not yet moved to enter. Work is scheduled to continue in OU2-5 through 2017; although work may be required into 2018 to complete the project, with monitoring and maintenance to follow. As more fully discussed below, significant uncertainties exist pertaining to the ultimate allocation of OU2-5 remediation costs as well as the shorter term funding of the remedial actions for OU2-5. 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. On October 14, 2014, the Governments represented to the United States District Court in Green Bay that $1.1 billion provided an “upper end estimate of total past and future response costs” including a $100 million “uncertainty premium for future response costs.” 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. Much of that amount has already been incurred, including approximately $100 million for OU1 and what we believe to be approximately $500 million for OU2-5 prior to the 2015 remediation season, and, although final accounts have not been prepared, less than $100 million in 2015. For 2015, Governments indicated their expectation was to have approximately $100 million worth of work completed in OU2-5; however we do not believe all work was completed. As the result of a partial settlement, Georgia-Pacific has no obligation to pay for work upstream of a line near Georgia-Pacific’s Green Bay West Mill located in OU4. We believe substantially all in-water work upstream of this line had been completed as of the end of the 2014 dredging season. Allocation Litigation. In January 2008, NCR and Appvion brought an action in the federal district court in Green Bay to allocate among all parties responsible for this Site all of the costs incurred by the Governments, all of the costs incurred by the parties, and all of the NRDs owed to the Natural Resource Trustees. We have previously referred to this case as the “Whiting Litigation.” After several summary judgment rulings and a trial, the trial court entered judgment in the Whiting Litigation, allocating to NCR 100% of the costs of (a) the OU2-5 cleanup, (b) NRDs, (c) past and future costs incurred by the Governments in OU2-5, and (d) past and future costs incurred by any of the other parties net of an appropriate equitable adjustment for insurance recoveries. As to Glatfelter, NCR was judged liable to us for $4.28 million and any future costs or damages we may incur. NCR was held not responsible for costs incurred in OU1. All parties appealed the Whiting Litigation judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On September 25, 2014, that court affirmed, holding that if knowledge and fault were the only equitable factors governing allocation of costs and NRDs at the Site, NCR would owe 100% of all costs and damages in OU2-5, but would not have a share of costs in OU1 – which is upstream of the outfall of the facilities for which NCR is responsible – solely as an “arranger for disposal” of PCB-containing waste paper by recycling it at our mill. However, the court of appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case for the district court’s further consideration of whether any other equitable factors might cause the district court to alter its allocation. We contend the district court should, after further consideration, reinstate the 100%, or some similar very high, allocation to NCR of all the costs, and should hold that we should bear no share or a very small share. However, NCR has taken a contrary position and has sought contributions from others for future work until all allocation issues are resolved. In addition, we take the position that the “single site” theory on which the courts held us responsible for cleaning up parts of the Site far downstream of our former mill should, if applied to NCR, make it liable for costs incurred in OU1. The district court agreed with us in an order dated March 3, 2015. On March 31, 2015, NCR sought review of that order by the court of appeals which review was denied on May 1, 2015. Appvion and NCR have had a cost-sharing agreement since at least 1998. The court of appeals held if Appvion incurred any recoverable costs because the Governments had named Appvion as a potentially responsible party, then Appvion may have a right to recover those costs under CERCLA. We and Appvion disagree over the proper treatment of amounts that Appvion incurred while a PRP that were also subject to a cost-sharing agreement with NCR; we contend Appvion may not recover costs it was contractually obligated to incur, that it has no other costs, and if it did, we would have a right to contribution of any recovery against NCR and others. However, Appvion takes a contrary position and claims in excess of $170 million. The district court has established a schedule for the Whiting Litigation under which it would hold a trial in January 2017 on remaining issues. Enforcement Litigation. In October 2010, the United States and the State of Wisconsin brought an action (“Government Action”) in the federal district court in Green Bay against us and 13 other defendants seeking (a) to recover all of their unreimbursed past costs, (b) to obtain a declaration of joint and several liability for all of their future costs, (c) to recover NRDs, and (d) to obtain a declaration of liability of all of the respondents on the UAO to perform the remedy in OU2-5 as required by the UAO and a mandatory permanent injunction to the same effect. The last of these claims was tried in 2012, and in May 2013, the district court enjoined us, NCR, WTM I, and Menasha Corp. to perform the work under the UAO. As the result of partial settlements, U.S. Paper Mills Corp. and Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products L.P. agreed to joint and several liability for some of the work. Appvion was held not liable for this Site under CERCLA. All other potentially responsible parties, including the United States and the State of Wisconsin, have settled with the Governments. As a result, the remaining defendants consist of us, NCR, and Georgia-Pacific. We appealed the injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, as did NCR, WTM I, and Menasha. On September 25, 2014, the court of appeals decided our and NCR’s appeals; the others’ appeals were not decided because they entered into a settlement. The court of appeals vacated the injunction as to us and NCR. However, it affirmed the district court’s ruling that we are liable for response actions in OU2-5 and for complying with the UAO. The court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s decision that NCR had failed to prove that liability for OU2-5 could be apportioned, directing the lower court to consider issues it had not considered initially. On remand, the district court issued an opinion on May 15, 2015, (“May 15 Decision”) in which it held that the existing trial record allowed it to apportion NCR’s liability for OU4 at 28% of the total OU4 costs. On October 19, 2015, the district court reconsidered its May 15 Decision and held that NCR had not shown a reasonable basis for apportionment of its liability for the site. On January 25, 2016, the court denied NCR’s request to certify that decision for immediate appeal, and set the case for a scheduling conference. We do not know the Governments’ intentions concerning further litigation of the Government Action, nor do we know the schedule for any further proceedings. We cannot now predict when it will be resolved. Interim Funding of Ongoing Work. As described above, the court of appeals vacated the allocation judgment in the Whiting Litigation on September 25, 2014, but neither court has since replaced that allocation with any other. The 2007 UAO requires the PRPs to submit annual remediation work plans. For 2015, the EPA approved the 2015 Work Plan for $100 million of remediation activities. NCR, GP, and we were not able to reach agreement on a division of the costs of that work on an interim basis, subject to reallocation in the Whiting Litigation. NCR and GP entered into a proposed consent decree with the United States under which they agreed to fund certain work estimated to cost approximately $67 million in 2015, and they will not be responsible for completing the remainder of the work in 2015, estimated to cost approximately $33 million. However, NCR and GP did not complete all of the work assigned to them under the consent decree. The United States has not moved to enter that consent decree. Through the issuance of the 2015 Work Plan the EPA assigned to us those remaining tasks. Under the proposed consent decree, all parties would remain jointly and severally liable for work in the 2015 Work Plan not completed in 2015, except for a small amount of work upstream of the area for which GP is responsible. We contracted for remediation work in OU4 at a total cost of $9.7 million, an amount of work less than the amount assigned to us in the 2015 Work Plan. We anticipate that the amount of work performed by us in 2015 satisfies our share of the obligation if NCR and GP perform the work assigned to them in the 2015 Work Plan. The United States disagrees. We cannot predict the outcome of these disagreements or any possible resulting litigation. In September 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice notified us that we, along with Georgia-Pacific, should be prepared to participate in the remediation activities during 2016. In addition, we understand NCR has submitted a draft 2016 Work Plan. Although we do not have an estimate of the costs of completing the work NCR proposes be completed in 2016, we expect the cost could approximate $100 million. The draft does not assign work to particular parties. Because we may not be able to obtain an agreement with the other parties or a ruling in litigation defining our obligation to contribute to work in 2016 prior to the time that work would have to be implemented, it is conceivable that we may have to choose an amount of work that we believe satisfies any obligation we may have to complete work in 2016, which selection we will have to defend after the fact. It is also conceivable we may be in the same position with respect to work in OU2-5 beyond the 2016 season. Although we are unable to determine with any degree of certainty the amount we may be required to complete or fund, those amounts could be significant. Any amounts we pay or any other party pays in the interim may be subject to reallocation when the Whiting Litigation is resolved. NRDs. The Governments’ NRD assessment documents originally claimed we are jointly and severally responsible for NRDs with a value between $176 million and $333 million. The Governments claimed this range should be inflated to current dollars and then certain unreimbursed past assessment costs should be added, so the range of their claim was $287 million to $423 million in 2009. However, on October 14, 2014, the Governments represented to the district court that if certain settlements providing $45.9 million toward compensation of NRDs were approved, the total NRD recovery would amount to $105 million. The Governments stated they would consider those recoveries adequate and they would withdraw their claims against us and NCR for additional compensation of NRDs. On October 19, 2015, the district court granted the Governments leave to withdraw their NRD claims against us without prejudice to re-filing them at some later time. Some of the settling parties, including all of the settling parties contributing the $45.9 million, have waived their rights to seek contribution from us of the settlement amounts. We previously paid a portion of the earlier settlements that the Governments value at $59 million and that we contend may be somewhat more. Reserves for the Site. Our reserve including ongoing monitoring obligations in OU1, our share of remediation of the downstream portions of the Site, NRDs and all pending, threatened or asserted and unasserted claims against us relating to PCB contamination is set forth below:
In thousands |  | 2015 |  |  | 2014 |
Balance at January 1, |  | $ | 16,223 |  |  | $ | 16,276 |
Payments |  |  | (9,118 | ) |  |  | (53 | )
Accruals |  |  | 10,000 |  |  |  | – |
Balance at December 31, |  | $ | 17,105 |  |  | $ | 16,223 |
The payments set forth above represent cash paid towards completion of remediation activities in connection with the 2015 Work Plan. In addition, in the third quarter of 2015 we increased our reserve by $10.0 million to reflect our estimate of costs to be incurred related to the 2016 Work Plan. If we are unsuccessful in the allocation litigation or in the enforcement litigation described above, we may be required to record additional charges and such charges could be significant. Of our total reserve for the Fox River, $12.5 million is recorded in the accompanying December 31, 2015 consolidated balance sheet under the caption “Environmental liabilities” and the remainder is recorded under the caption “Other long term liabilities.” As described above, the appellate court vacated and remanded for reconsideration the district court’s ruling in the Whiting Litigation that NCR would bear 100% of costs for the downstream portion of the Site. We continue to believe we will not be allocated a significant share of liability in any final equitable allocation of the response costs for OU2-5 or for NRDs. The accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include reserves for any future defense costs, which could be significant, related to our involvement at the Site. 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 original determination in the Whiting Litigation that NCR owes us “full contribution” for response costs and for NRDs that we may become obligated to pay except in OU1. We assume we will not bear the entire cost of remediation or damages to the exclusion of other known parties at the Site, who are also jointly and severally liable. The existence and ability of other parties to participate has also been taken into account in setting our reserve, and setting our reserve 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, we have considered 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 associated with the Site. Other Information. The Governments have published studies estimating the amount of PCBs discharged by each identified potentially responsible party 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 has found the discharge mass estimates used in these studies not to be accurate. We believe the Neenah mill’s absolute and relative contribution of PCB mass is significantly lower than the estimates set forth in these studies. The district court in the Government Action has found that the Neenah mill discharged an unknown amount of PCBs. 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 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 other factors, such as a party’s role in causing costs, the location of discharge, and the location of contamination must be considered in order for the allocation to be equitable. Range of Reasonably Possible Outcomes. Based on our analysis of all available information, including but not limited to decisions of the courts, official documents such as records of decision, as well as discussions with legal counsel and cost estimates for work to be performed at the Site, and substantially dependent on the resolution of the allocation issues discussed above, we believe it is reasonably possible that our costs associated with the Fox River matter could exceed the aggregate amounts accrued for the Fox River matter by amounts ranging from insignificant to $175 million. We believe the likelihood of an outcome in the upper end of the monetary range is less than other possible outcomes within the range and the possibility of an outcome in excess of the upper end of the monetary range is remote. We expect remediation costs to be incurred primarily over the next two to three years, although we are unable to determine with any degree of certainty the amount we may be required to fund for interim remediation work. To the extent we provide such interim funding, we contend that NCR or another party would be required to reimburse us once the final allocation is determined. Summary. Our current assessment is 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 our reserves will be adequate to provide for future obligations related to this matter, or our share of costs and/or damages will not exceed our available resources, or 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 requiring us individually either to perform directly or to contribute significant amounts towards remedial action downstream of Little Lake Butte des Morts 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
- 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://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 2: 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=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: 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 4: 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 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