PURCHASE COMMITMENTS AND OPERATING LEASES
Certain property, machinery and equipment are leased under cancelable and non-cancelable agreements.
Unconditional purchase obligations have been entered into in the ordinary course of business, principally for capital projects and the purchase of certain pulpwood, logs, wood chips, raw materials, energy and services, including fiber supply agreements to purchase pulpwood that were entered into concurrently with the Company’s 2006 Transformation Plan forestland sales and in conjunction with the 2008 acquisition of Weyerhaeuser Company’s Containerboard, Packaging and Recycling business.
At December 31, 2013, total future minimum commitments under existing non-cancelable operating leases and purchase obligations were as follows:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In millions | 2014 |
| 2015 |
| 2016 |
| 2017 |
| 2018 |
| Thereafter |
|
Lease obligations | $ | 171 |
| $ | 133 |
| $ | 97 |
| $ | 74 |
| $ | 59 |
| $ | 162 |
|
Purchase obligations (a) | 3,170 |
| 770 |
| 642 |
| 529 |
| 453 |
| 2,404 |
|
Total | $ | 3,341 |
| $ | 903 |
| $ | 739 |
| $ | 603 |
| $ | 512 |
| $ | 2,566 |
|
| |
(a) | Includes $3.3 billion relating to fiber supply agreements entered into at the time of the Company’s 2006 Transformation Plan forestland sales and in conjunction with the 2008 acquisition of Weyerhaeuser Company’s Containerboard, Packaging and Recycling business. |
Rent expense was $215 million, $231 million and $205 million for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
GUARANTEES
In connection with sales of businesses, property, equipment, forestlands and other assets, International Paper commonly makes representations and warranties relating to such businesses or assets, and may agree to indemnify buyers with respect to tax and environmental liabilities, breaches of representations and warranties, and other matters. Where liabilities for such matters are determined to be probable and subject to reasonable estimation, accrued liabilities are recorded at the time of sale as a cost of the transaction.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS
International Paper has been named as a potentially responsible party in environmental remediation actions under various federal and state laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Many of these proceedings involve the cleanup of hazardous substances at large commercial landfills that received waste from many different sources. While joint and several liability is authorized under CERCLA and equivalent state laws, as a practical matter, liability for CERCLA cleanups is typically allocated among the many potential responsible parties. Remedial costs are recorded in the consolidated financial statements when they become probable and reasonably estimable. International Paper has estimated the probable liability associated with these matters to be approximately $94 million in the aggregate at December 31, 2013.
Cass Lake: One of the matters referenced above is a closed wood treating facility located in Cass Lake, Minnesota. During 2009, in connection with an environmental site remediation action under CERCLA, International Paper submitted to the EPA a site remediation feasibility study. In June 2011, the EPA selected and published a proposed soil remedy at the site with an estimated cost of $46 million. The overall remediation reserve for the site is currently $51 million to address this selection of an alternative for the soil remediation component of the overall site remedy. In October 2011, the EPA released a public statement indicating that the final soil remedy decision would be delayed. In the unlikely event that the EPA changes its proposed soil remedy and approves instead a more expensive clean-up alternative, the remediation costs could be material, and significantly higher than amounts currently recorded. In October 2012, the Natural Resource Trustees for this site provided notice to International Paper and other potentially responsible parties of their intent to perform a Natural Resource Damage Assessment. It is premature to predict the outcome of the assessment or to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred.
Other: In addition to the above matters, other remediation costs typically associated with the cleanup of hazardous substances at the Company’s current, closed or formerly-owned facilities, and recorded as liabilities in the balance sheet, totaled approximately $42 million at December 31, 2013. Other than as described above, completion of required remedial actions is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.
Kalamazoo River: The Company is a potentially responsible party with respect to the Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site (Kalamazoo River Superfund Site) in Michigan. The EPA asserts that the site is contaminated primarily by PCBs as a result of discharges from various paper mills located along the Kalamazoo river, including a paper mill formerly owned by St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis). The Company is a successor in interest to St. Regis. The Company has not received any orders from the EPA with respect to the site and continues to collect information from the EPA and other parties relative to the site to evaluate the extent of its liability, if any, with respect to the site. Accordingly, it is premature to estimate a loss or range of loss with respect to this site.
Also in connection with the Kalamazoo River Superfund Site, the Company was named as a defendant by Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, Fort James Corporation and Georgia Pacific LLC in a contribution and cost recovery action for alleged pollution at the site. The suit seeks contribution under CERCLA for $79 million in costs purportedly expended by plaintiffs as of the filing of the complaint and for future remediation costs. The suit alleges that a mill, during the time it was allegedly owned and operated by St. Regis, discharged PCB contaminated solids and paper residuals resulting from paper de-inking and recycling. Also named as defendants in the suit are NCR Corporation and Weyerhaeuser Company. In mid-2011, the suit was transferred from the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to the District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The trial of the initial liability phase took place in February 2013. Weyerhaeuser conceded prior to trial that it was a liable party with respect to the site. In September 2013, an opinion and order was issued in the suit. The order concluded that the Company (as the successor to St. Regis) was not an “operator,” but was an “owner,” of the mill at issue during a portion of the relevant period and is therefore liable under CERCLA. The order also determined that NCR is a liable party as an "arranger for disposal" of PCBs in waste paper that was de-inked and recycled by mills along the Kalamazoo River. The order did not address the Company's responsibility, if any, for costs for which plaintiffs in the suit are seeking recovery. This will be the subject of a separate trial, which has been set for July 2015. The Company thus believes it is premature to predict the outcome or to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred.
Harris County: International Paper and McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., are potentially responsible parties at the San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site (San Jacinto Superfund Site) in Harris County, Texas, and have been actively participating in investigation and remediation activities at this Superfund Site. In December 2011, Harris County, Texas filed a suit against the Company in Harris County District Court seeking civil penalties with regard to the alleged discharge of dioxin into the San Jacinto River since 1965 from waste impoundments that are part of the San Jacinto River Superfund Site. Also named as defendants in this action are McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation, Waste Management, Inc. and Waste Management of Texas, Inc. Harris County is seeking civil penalties pursuant to the Texas Water Code, which provides for the imposition of civil penalties between $50 and $25,000 per day. The case is in the discovery phase and it is therefore premature to predict the outcome or to estimate our maximum reasonably possible loss. However, we do not believe that any material loss is probable.
In October 2012, a civil lawsuit was filed against the same defendants, including the Company, in the District Court of Harris County by what are now in excess of 500 plaintiffs seeking medical monitoring and damages with regard to the alleged discharge of dioxin into the San Jacinto River since 1965 from waste impoundments that are a part of the San Jacinto Superfund Site. This case is in the discovery phase and it is therefore premature to predict the outcome or to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred. In December 2012, residents of an up-river neighborhood filed a civil action against the same defendants, including the Company, in the District Court of Harris County alleging property damage and personal injury from the alleged discharge of dioxin into the San Jacinto River from the San Jacinto Superfund Site. This case is in the discovery phase and it is therefore premature to predict the outcome or to estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, which may be incurred.
Bogalusa: In August 2011, Temple-Inland's Bogalusa, Louisiana paper mill experienced an upset condition that resulted in fish kill on the Pearl River (the Bogalusa Incident). Louisiana and Mississippi state regulatory agencies and the U.S. Department of Justice (the DOJ) initiated enforcement actions against Temple-Inland as a result of the Bogalusa Incident. We have resolved the Louisiana and Mississippi enforcement matters and paid approximately $3 million in penalties.
The DOJ investigation into the Bogalusa Incident was resolved in the second quarter of 2013 upon federal court approval of a criminal plea agreement between Temple-Inland subsidiary, TIN Inc., and the DOJ. Under the plea agreement, TIN Inc. pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor environmental offenses, paid a $3.3 million financial penalty, and agreed to a two-year corporate probation period.
In late 2013, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and TIN Inc. reached a settlement, subject to State Attorney General approval, to resolve a LDEQ enforcement arising from (1) alleged environmental violations identified in an LDEQ environmental audit conducted immediately after the Bogalusa Incident, and (2) air permit deviations self-disclosed by the mill in 2012. Pursuant to the settlement, TIN Inc. will pay $125,000 to fund a beneficial improvement project.
In December 2013, the district attorney for Washington Parish, in which Bogalusa is located, filed a lawsuit alleging that there are additional damages that were not resolved by a November 2011 settlement between TIN Inc. and the Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Department (LDWF). That settlement resolved a LDWF claim for wildlife injury damages arising from the Bogalusa Incidents and the validity of the settlement was upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court. We believe that the new suit is without merit and we are vigorously defending our position.
Temple-Inland (or its affiliates) was a defendant in 28 civil lawsuits in Louisiana and Mississippi related to the Bogalusa Incident. Fifteen of these civil cases were filed in Louisiana state court shortly after the incident and were removed and consolidated in an action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana along with a civil case originally filed in that court. During August 2012, an additional 13 causes of action were filed in federal or state court in Mississippi and Louisiana. In October 2012, International Paper and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, the group of attorneys appointed by the Louisiana federal court to organize and coordinate the efforts of all the plaintiffs in this litigation, reached a tentative understanding on key structural terms and an amount for resolution of the litigation. The court granted preliminary approval for the proposed class action settlement on December 26, 2012. There were no opt-outs and four objections which were all later withdrawn. The Fairness Hearing was held July 10, 2013, and the court issued its Final Order and Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement the same day. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the class action settlement was deemed final on August 9, 2013. We funded the settlement in September 2013. This settlement did not have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements.
LEGAL PROCEEEDINGS
Antitrust: In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in August 2005 through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged class is all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the period August 2005 to the present. The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and attorney’s fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys’ fees. The Company disputes the allegations made and intends to vigorously defend each action. However, because both actions are in the preliminary stages, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.
Beginning in late December 2012, certain purchasers of gypsum board filed a number of purported class action complaints alleging civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Temple-Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers. The complaints were similar and alleged that the gypsum manufacturers conspired or otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of gypsum board either from 2008 or 2011 through the present; (2) avoid price erosion by ceasing the practice of issuing job quotes; and (3) restrict supply through downtime and limit order fulfillment. The alleged classes are all persons who purchased gypsum board and/or gypsum finishing products directly or indirectly from any defendant. The complainants seek to recover unspecified treble actual damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported classes. On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered transfer of all pending cases to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013. The amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or agreement beginning in or before September 2011. The Company disputes the allegations made and intends to vigorously defend the consolidated actions. In addition, in September 2013, purported class actions were filed in courts in Quebec, Canada and Ontario, Canada, with each suit alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act and seeking damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to dispute the allegations made and to vigorously defend the litigation. Because the U.S. cases are in the discovery phase and the Canadian cases are in a preliminary stage, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate our maximum reasonably possible loss. However, we do not believe that any material loss is probable.
Guaranty Bank: As we have previously disclosed, Temple-Inland was named as a defendant in a lawsuit captioned North Port Firefighters’ Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc., filed in November 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and subsequently amended. The lawsuit alleges a class action against Temple-Inland and certain individual defendants contending that Temple-Inland misrepresented the financial condition of Guaranty Financial Group during the period December 12, 2007 through August 24, 2009. On June 20, 2012, all defendants in the lawsuit filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 28, 2013, the district court granted Temple-Inland's and the individual defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice. On April 26, 2013, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint that asserted claims against the individual defendants, but did not assert any claims against Temple-Inland. On July 30, 2013, the district court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint filed against the individual defendants with prejudice, also noting that since the plaintiff did not seek the court's leave to amend its complaint with respect to the claims against Temple-Inland, all claims against Temple-Inland were dismissed with prejudice. On August 27, 2013, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the district court's ruling.
Certain of the individual defendants in the North Port litigation have requested advancement of their costs of defense from Temple-Inland and have asserted a right to indemnification by Temple-Inland. We believe that all or part of these defense costs would be covered losses under Temple-Inland's directors and officers insurance. The carriers under the applicable policies have been notified of the claims and each has responded with a reservations of rights letter.
Tax: The Company is currently being challenged by Brazilian tax authorities concerning the statute of limitations related to the use of certain tax credits. The Company is appealing an unfavorable March 2012 administrative court ruling. The potential loss to the Company in the event of a final unfavorable outcome is approximately $29 million.
General: The Company is involved in various other inquiries, administrative proceedings and litigation relating to environmental and safety matters, contracts, sales of property, intellectual property, personal injury, labor and employment and other matters, some of which allege substantial monetary damages. While any proceeding or litigation has the element of uncertainty, the Company believes that the outcome of any of the lawsuits or claims that are pending or threatened or all of them combined (other than those that cannot be assessed due to their preliminary nature) will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements.
