| Contingencies | CONTINGENCIES We have described below judicial and administrative proceedings to which we are subject. Environmental Matters We have contingent environmental liabilities that arise principally from three sources: (i) facilities currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries or their predecessors; (ii) facilities adjacent to currently or formerly owned facilities; and (iii) third-party Superfund or state equivalent sites. At facilities currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries or their predecessors, the historical use and handling of regulated chemical substances, crop and animal nutrients and additives and by-product or process tailings have resulted in soil, surface water and/or groundwater contamination. Spills or other releases of regulated substances, subsidence from mining operations and other incidents arising out of operations, including accidents, have occurred previously at these facilities, and potentially could occur in the future, possibly requiring us to undertake or fund cleanup or result in monetary damage awards, fines, penalties, other liabilities, injunctions or other court or administrative rulings. In some instances, pursuant to consent orders or agreements with governmental agencies, we are undertaking certain remedial actions or investigations to determine whether remedial action may be required to address contamination. At other locations, we have entered into consent orders or agreements with appropriate governmental agencies to perform required remedial activities that will address identified site conditions. Taking into consideration established accruals of approximately $35.1 million and $79.6 million , as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 , respectively, expenditures for these known conditions currently are not expected, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material effect on our business or financial condition. However, material expenditures could be required in the future to remediate the contamination at known sites or at other current or former sites or as a result of other environmental, health and safety matters. Below is a discussion of the more significant environmental matters. New Wales Water Loss Incident . In August 2016, a sinkhole developed under one of the two cells of the active phosphogypsum stack at our New Wales facility in Polk County, Florida, resulting in process water from the stack draining into the sinkhole. The incident was reported to the FDEP and EPA and in October 2016 our subsidiary, Mosaic Fertilizer, entered into a consent order (the “ Order ”) with the FDEP relating to the incident under which Mosaic Fertilizer agreed to, among other things: implement a remediation plan to close the sinkhole; perform additional monitoring of the groundwater quality and act to assess and remediate in the event monitored off-site water does not comply with applicable standards as a result of the incident; evaluate the risk of potential future sinkhole formation at the New Wales facility and at Mosaic Fertilizer’s active Gypstack operations at the Bartow, Riverview and Plant City facilities with recommendations to address any identified issues; and provide financial assurance of no less than $40.0 million , which we have done without the need for any expenditure of corporate funds through satisfaction of a financial strength test and Mosaic parent guarantee. The Order did not require payment of civil penalties relating to the incident. In 2016, we recorded expenses and related accruals of approximately $70.0 million , reflecting our estimated costs related to the sinkhole. At June 30, 2017 we accrued an additional $14.0 million , in part due to refinements in our estimates as repairs progressed and because we determined that a portion of the sinkhole was wider than previously estimated. As of December 31, 2017, we had incurred approximately $62.0 million in remediation and sinkhole-related costs and we estimate that the remaining cost to complete and implement the remediation plan and comply with our responsibilities under the Order as described above will be approximately $22.0 million . There are, however, uncertainties in estimating these costs. Additional expenditures could be required in the future for additional remediation or other measures in connection with the sinkhole including if, for example, FDEP or EPA were to request additional measures to address risks presented by the Gypstack, and these expenditures could be material. In addition, we are unable to predict at this time what, if any, impact the New Wales water loss incident will have on future Florida permitting efforts. EPA RCRA Initiative . Our obligations under the 2015 Consent Decrees, the consent decree relating to our Plant City Facility and our financial assurance obligations relating to the Bonnie Facility Trust are discussed in Note 13 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. EPA EPCRA Initiative . In July 2008, DOJ sent a letter to major U.S. phosphoric acid manufacturers, including us, stating that EPA’s ongoing investigation indicates apparent violations of Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“ EPCRA ”) at their phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities. Section 313 of EPCRA requires annual reports to be submitted with respect to the use or presence of certain toxic chemicals. DOJ and EPA also stated that they believe that a number of these facilities have violated Section 304 of EPCRA and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“ CERCLA ”) by failing to provide required notifications relating to the release of hydrogen fluoride from the facilities. The letter did not identify any specific violations by us or assert a demand for penalties against us. We cannot predict at this time whether EPA and DOJ will initiate an enforcement action over this matter, what its scope would be, or what the range of outcomes of such a potential enforcement action might be. Florida Sulfuric Acid Plants . On April 8, 2010, EPA Region 4 submitted an administrative subpoena to us under Section 114 of the Federal Clean Air Act (the “ CAA ”) regarding compliance of our Florida sulfuric acid plants with the “New Source Review” requirements of the CAA. The request received by Mosaic appears to be part of a broader EPA national enforcement initiative focusing on sulfuric acid plants. On June 16, 2010, EPA issued an NOV to CF (the “ CF NOV ”) with respect to “New Source Review” compliance at the Plant City Facility’s sulfuric acid plants and the allegations in that NOV were not resolved before our 2014 acquisition of the Plant City Facility. CF has agreed to indemnify us with respect to any penalty EPA may assess as a result of the allegations in that NOV. We are negotiating the terms of a settlement with EPA that would resolve both the violations alleged in the CF NOV, and violations which EPA may contend, but have not asserted, exist at the sulfuric acid plants at our other facilities in Florida. Based on the current status of the negotiations, we expect that our commitments will include an agreement to reduce our sulfur dioxide emissions over the next two to five years to comply with a sulfur dioxide ambient air quality standard enacted by EPA in 2010. In the event we are unable to finalize agreement on the terms of the settlement, we cannot predict at this time whether EPA and DOJ will initiate an enforcement action with respect to “New Source Review” compliance at our Florida sulfuric acid plants other than the Plant City Facility or what its scope would be, or what the range of outcomes might be with respect to such a potential enforcement action or with respect to the CF NOV. Other Environmental Matters . Superfund and equivalent state statutes impose liability without regard to fault or to the legality of a party’s conduct on certain categories of persons who are considered to have contributed to the release of “hazardous substances” into the environment. Under Superfund, or its various state analogues, one party may, under certain circumstances, be required to bear more than its proportionate share of cleanup costs at a site where it has liability if payments cannot be obtained from other responsible parties. Currently, certain of our subsidiaries are involved or concluding involvement at several Superfund or equivalent state sites. Our remedial liability from these sites, alone or in the aggregate, currently is not expected to have a material effect on our business or financial condition. As more information is obtained regarding these sites and the potentially responsible parties involved, this expectation could change. We believe that, pursuant to several indemnification agreements, our subsidiaries are entitled to at least partial, and in many instances complete, indemnification for the costs that may be expended by us or our subsidiaries to remedy environmental issues at certain facilities. These agreements address issues that resulted from activities occurring prior to our acquisition of facilities or businesses from parties including, but not limited to, ARCO (BP); Beatrice Fund for Environmental Liabilities; Conoco; Conserv; Estech, Inc.; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation; Kerr-McGee Inc.; PPG Industries, Inc.; The Williams Companies; CF; and certain other private parties. Our subsidiaries have already received and anticipate receiving amounts pursuant to the indemnification agreements for certain of their expenses incurred to date as well as future anticipated expenditures. We record potential indemnifications as an offset to the established accruals when they are realizable or realized. Phosphate Mine Permitting in Florida Denial of the permits sought at any of our mines, issuance of the permits with cost-prohibitive conditions, or substantial delays in issuing the permits, legal actions that prevent us from relying on permits or revocation of permits may create challenges for us to mine the phosphate rock required to operate our Florida and Louisiana phosphate plants at desired levels or increase our costs in the future. The South Pasture Extension . In November 2016 the Army Corps of Engineers (the “ Corps ”) issued a federal wetlands permit under the Clean Water Act for mining an extension of our South Pasture phosphate rock mine in central Florida. On December 20, 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity, ManaSota-88, People for Protecting Peace River and Suncoast Waterkeeper issued a 60-day notice of intent to sue the Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “ Service ”) under the federal Endangered Species Act regarding actions taken by the Corps and Service in connection with the issuance of the permit. On March 15, 2017, the same group filed a complaint against the Corps, the Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (the “ Tampa District Court ”). The complaint alleges that various actions taken by the Corps and the Service in connection with the issuance of the permit, including in connection with the Service’s biological opinion and the Corps’ reliance on that biological opinion, violated substantive and procedural requirements of the federal Clean Water Act (“ CWA ”), the National Environmental Policy Act (“ NEPA ”) and the Endangered Species Act (the “ ESA ”), and were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “ APA ”). As to the Corps, plaintiffs allege in their complaint, among other things, that the Corps failed to conduct an adequate analysis under the CWA of alternatives, failed to fully consider the effects of the South Pasture extension mine, failed to take adequate steps to minimize potential adverse impacts and violated the ESA by relying on the Service’s biological opinion to determine that its permitting decision is not likely to adversely affect certain endangered or rare species. As to the Service, plaintiffs allege in their complaint, among other things, that the Service’s biological opinion fails to meet statutory requirements, that the Service failed to properly consider impacts and adequately assess the cumulative effects on certain species, and that the Service violated the ESA in finding that the South Pasture extension mine is not likely to adversely affect certain endangered or rare species. The plaintiffs are seeking relief including (i) declarations that the Corps’ decision to issue the permit violated the CWA, NEPA, the ESA and the APA and that its NEPA review violated the law; (ii) declarations that the Service’s biological opinion violated applicable law and that the Corps’ reliance on the biological opinion violated the ESA; (iii) orders that the Corps rescind the permit, that the Service withdraw its biological opinion and related analyses and prepare a biological opinion that complies with the ESA; and (iv) that the Corps be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from authorizing any further action under the permit until it complies fully with the requirements of the CWA, NEPA, the ESA and the APA. On March 31, 2017, Mosaic’s motion for intervention was granted with no restrictions. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2017, without any new substantive allegations, and on June 28, 2017, Mosaic (as intervenor) and separately, the defendants, filed answers to the amended complaint. On June 30, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the permit should not have been issued. On July 15, 2017, Mosaic filed a response in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion, and on July 28, 2017, Mosaic filed its own motion for summary judgment. On December 14, 2017 the Tampa District Court granted Mosaic’s motion for summary judgment in favor of Mosaic and the government defendants, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the administrative record. On February 12, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of the Tampa District Court decision. We believe the plaintiffs’ claims in this case are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the Corps’ issuance of the South Pasture extension permit and the Service’s biological opinion. However, if the plaintiffs were to prevail in this case, we would be prohibited from continuing to mine the South Pasture extension, and obtaining new or modified permits could significantly delay our resumption of mining and could result in more onerous mining conditions. This could have a material effect on our future results of operations, reduce future cash flows from operations, and in the longer term, conceivably adversely affect our liquidity and capital resources. MicroEssentials ® Patent Lawsuit On January 9, 2009, John Sanders and Specialty Fertilizer Products, LLC filed a complaint against Mosaic, Mosaic Fertilizer, Cargill, Incorporated and Cargill Fertilizer, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the “ Missouri District Court ”). The complaint alleges that our production of MicroEssentials ® SZ, one of several types of the MicroEssentials ® value-added ammoniated phosphate crop nutrient products that we produce, infringes on a patent held by the plaintiffs since 2001 and which would expire in 2018. Plaintiffs have since asserted that other MicroEssentials ® products also infringe the patent. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the alleged infringement and to recover an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees for past infringement. Our answer to the complaint responds that the plaintiffs’ patent is not infringed, is invalid and is unenforceable because the plaintiffs engaged in inequitable conduct during the prosecution of the patent. Through an order entered by the court on September 25, 2014, Cargill was dismissed as a defendant, and the two original plaintiffs were replaced by a single plaintiff, JLSMN LLC, an entity to whom the patents were transferred. The Missouri District Court stayed the lawsuit pending an ex parte reexamination of plaintiff’s current patent claims by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “ PTO ”). That ex parte reexamination has now ended. On September 12, 2012, however, Shell Oil Company (“ Shell ”) filed an additional reexamination request which in part asserted that the claims as amended and added in connection with the ex parte reexamination are unpatentable. On October 4, 2012, the PTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate in which certain claims of the plaintiff’s patent were cancelled, disclaimed and amended, and new claims were added. Following the PTO’s grant of Shell’s request for an inter parties reexamination, on December 11, 2012, the PTO issued an initial rejection of all of plaintiff’s remaining patent claims. On September 12, 2013, the PTO reversed its initial rejection of the plaintiff’s remaining patent claims and allowed them to stand. Shell appealed the PTO’s decision, and on June 7, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the highest appellate authority within the PTO, issued a final decision holding that all claims initially allowed to the plaintiff by the PTO examiner should instead have been found invalid. On July 18, 2016, plaintiff appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and on November 8, 2017, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision, resulting in no remaining claims against us. Plaintiff has stated that it plans to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court following that decision. The stay in the Missouri District Court litigation is expected to remain in place during the appellate proceedings. We believe that the plaintiff’s allegations are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. At this stage of the proceedings, we cannot predict the outcome of this litigation, estimate the potential amount or range of loss or determine whether it will have a material effect on our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources. Brazil Tax Contingencies Our Brazilian subsidiary is engaged in a number of judicial and administrative proceedings, including audits, relating to various non-income tax matters. We estimate that our maximum potential liability with respect to these matters is approximately $138.0 million . Approximately $109.0 million of the maximum potential liability relates to credits of PIS and Cofins, which is a Brazilian federal value added tax for the period from 2004 to 2016; while the majority of the remaining amount relates to various other non-income tax cases such as value-added taxes. The maximum potential liability can increase with new audits. Based on Brazil legislation and the current status of similar tax cases involving unrelated taxpayers, we believe we have recorded adequate accruals, which are immaterial, for the probable liability with respect to these Brazilian judicial and administrative proceedings. If status of similar tax cases involving unrelated taxpayer changes in the future, additional accruals could be required. Other Claims We also have certain other contingent liabilities with respect to judicial, administrative and arbitration proceedings and claims of third parties, including tax matters, arising in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that any of these contingent liabilities will have a material adverse impact on our business or financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. |
