Commitments and Contingencies | Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies Legal matters We become involved in various legal proceedings and other disputes in the normal course of business, including matters related to contracts, commercial and trade disputes, taxes, environmental issues, activists’ damages, employment and workers’ compensation claims, Aboriginal claims and other matters. Although the final outcome is subject to many variables and cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, we regularly assess the status of the matters and establish provisions (including legal costs expected to be incurred) when we believe an adverse outcome is probable, and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Except as described below and for claims that cannot be assessed due to their preliminary nature, we believe that the ultimate disposition of these matters outstanding or pending as of September 30, 2017 , will not have a material adverse effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements. Countervailing and anti-dumping duty investigations on softwood lumber products On November 25, 2016, countervailing and anti-dumping duty petitions were filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) by certain U.S. softwood lumber producers and forest landowners, requesting that the U.S. government impose countervailing and anti-dumping duties on Canadian-origin softwood lumber products exported to the U.S. One of our subsidiaries was identified in the petition as being a Canadian exporting producer of softwood lumber products to the U.S. and was selected as a mandatory respondent to be investigated by Commerce in both the countervailing and anti-dumping duty investigations. On April 24, 2017, Commerce announced its preliminary determinations in the countervailing duty investigation, and, as a result, beginning April 28, 2017, we were required to pay cash deposits to the U.S. at a rate of 12.82% for estimated countervailing duties on our imports to the U.S. of softwood lumber products produced at our Canadian sawmills. The preliminary rate remained in effect until August 26, 2017, and we have not been required to pay countervailing duty deposits since then. On November 2, 2017, Commerce announced its final determinations in the countervailing duty investigation, including an estimated countervailing duty rate of 14.7% for our softwood lumber product imports to the U.S. from our Canadian sawmills. We will be required to pay cash deposits to the U.S. at that rate if and when the ITC publishes an affirmative final determination. If as a result of the ITC final determination, Commerce issues an order that we are subject to countervailing duty deposit requirements on any of our softwood lumber product imports to the U.S., then we will be required to resume making cash deposits at the 14.7% rate until Commerce sets a duty rate in a subsequent administrative review. Through September 30, 2017 , our cash deposits totaled $15 million , and based on the 14.7% rate and our current operating parameters, could be as high as $65 million per year. On June 26, 2017, Commerce announced its preliminary determinations in the anti-dumping duty investigation, and, as a result, since June 30, 2017, we have been required to pay cash deposits to the U.S. at a rate of 4.59% for estimated anti-dumping duties on our imports to the U.S. of softwood lumber products produced at our Canadian sawmills. On November 2, 2017, Commerce announced its final determinations in the investigation, including an estimated anti-dumping duty rate of 3.2% for our softwood lumber product imports to the U.S. from our Canadian sawmills. As a result, since November 8, 2017, we have been paying cash deposits for estimated anti-dumping duties at the 3.2% rate. Through September 30, 2017 , our cash deposits totaled $3 million , and based on the 3.2% rate and our current operating parameters, could be as high as $15 million per year. If the ITC does not publish its final determination before the date that is six months from the preliminary determination date, we would not be required to pay anti-dumping duty deposits until the ITC publishes its final determination. If as a result of the ITC final determination, Commerce issues an order that we are subject to anti-dumping duty deposit requirements on any of our softwood lumber product imports to the U.S., then we would be required to resume making cash deposits at the 3.2% rate until Commerce sets a duty rate in a subsequent administrative review. Based on the preliminary 4.59% rate until November 7, 2017, and the 3.2% rate thereafter, and our current operating parameters, cash deposits on our imports of the affected softwood lumber products to the U.S. would be approximately $8 million for the initial six -month period of the anti-dumping duty investigation. In addition, before Commerce issues any countervailing or anti-dumping duty order, the ITC must determine whether any alleged subsidization or dumping threatens injury to the U.S. softwood lumber industry or causes current injury. If the ITC determines that there is a threat of injury or no injury, rather than current injury, then all deposits paid between Commerce’s preliminary determination and the publication of the ITC’s final determination, would be returned. We are not presently able to determine the ultimate resolution of these matters, but we believe it is not probable that we will ultimately be assessed with significant duties on our Canadian-produced softwood lumber products that are exported to the U.S. Accordingly, no contingent loss was recorded in respect of these petitions in our Consolidated Statement of Operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 , and our cash deposits were recorded in “Other assets” in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Countervailing duty investigation on SC paper On February 26, 2015, a countervailing duty petition was filed with Commerce and the ITC by certain U.S. supercalendered (“SC”) paper producers requesting that the U.S. government impose countervailing duties on Canadian-origin SC paper exported to the U.S. market. One of our subsidiaries was identified in the petition as being a Canadian exporting producer of SC paper to the U.S. and was selected as a mandatory respondent to be investigated by Commerce. As a result of that investigation, since August 3, 2015, we have been required to pay cash deposits to the U.S. for estimated countervailing duties on our imports to the U.S. of SC paper produced at our Canadian mills. Between August 3, 2015 and October 15, 2015, we were required to make cash deposits at a rate of 2.04% . On October 15, 2015, that rate increased to 17.87% , 17.10% of which was not based on any countervailable subsidy we received, but rather on a punitive application of “adverse facts available.” We are required to continue making cash deposits at the 17.87% rate until Commerce sets a countervailing duty rate in an administrative review. We were selected as a mandatory respondent in the first administrative review, which Commerce commenced on February 13, 2017. Our countervailing duty rate for our SC paper exported to the U.S. market in 2015, if any, will be based on Commerce’s determination in this administrative review as to whether we received countervailable subsidies that benefited our Canadian production of SC paper during the relevant period. Following the initial administrative review, which may not be finalized in 2017, we may remain subject to annual administrative reviews until December 2020, or possibly later, and the duty rate, if any, applicable to our SC paper exported to the U.S. market during periods subsequent to December 31, 2015, will be based on Commerce’s determinations in such future administrative reviews. The decision in each administrative review is subject to appeal. To the extent the countervailing duty rate set by Commerce is lower than 17.87% , we will recover excess deposits, plus interest. If the countervailing duty rate set by Commerce is at or above 17.87% , the deposits and any deficiency will be converted into actual countervailing duties. Following Commerce’s rate determination in 2015, we appealed that determination to a bi-national panel under the North American Free Trade Agreement (the “Panel”). On April 13, 2017, the Panel issued its decision, remanding the matter to Commerce and upholding several of Commerce’s determinations, including among others its application of adverse facts available in setting our 17.87% subsidy rate. Notwithstanding the Panel’s decision, Commerce’s prior determination of adverse facts available does not apply in an administrative review. In addition, the Panel’s decision can be challenged by the Canadian government, although not until the conclusion of the remand process. The Canadian government has already filed a separate World Trade Organization challenge to Commerce’s countervailing duty determination in the SC paper investigation, including Commerce’s use of adverse facts available against us. Through September 30, 2017 , our cumulative cash deposits totaled $44 million , and based on our current operating parameters, could be as high as $25 million in 2017. We are not presently able to determine the ultimate resolution of this matter, but we believe it is not probable that we will ultimately be assessed with significant countervailing duties on our Canadian-produced SC paper. Accordingly, no contingent loss was recorded in respect of this petition in our Consolidated Statement of Operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 . These cash deposits were recorded in “Other assets” in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Jedson Case On March 9, 2017, Jedson Engineering, Inc. and Jedson C.M., Inc. (the “Jedson plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against our subsidiary, Resolute FP US Inc., and other defendants in state court in Tennessee. The complaint alleged breach of contract and violation of Tennessee's Prompt Pay Act for failure to pay for services in connection with the design and construction of our Calhoun tissue project, and sought a recovery of, and enforcement of mechanic’s liens for, approximately $10 million , plus interest and cost of litigation. On April 17, 2017, Resolute filed an answer and counterclaim alleging, among other things, breach of contract and professional negligence by the Jedson plaintiffs and seeking recovery for, among other things, resulting costs on the project. On April 4, 2017, the Jedson plaintiffs also filed a motion for an injunction under the Prompt Pay Act seeking immediate payment of monies claimed and, on April 20, 2017, a motion to abate Resolute FP US Inc.’s counterclaim, both of which we opposed and have not been heard by the court. On August 25, 2017, the Jedson plaintiffs amended their complaint. As amended, the complaint includes allegations of fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and a claim for punitive damages in an amount of up to approximately $20 million . The Company disputes the Jedson plaintiffs’ allegations, and intends to vigorously defend the action. The lawsuit is at a preliminary stage. Accordingly, we are not presently able to determine the ultimate resolution of this matter or to reasonably estimate the potential impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements. Modification of U.S. OPEB plan Effective January 1, 2015, we modified our U.S. OPEB plan so that unionized participants, upon reaching Medicare eligibility, are provided Medicare coverage via a Medicare Exchange program rather than via a Company-sponsored medical plan. On March 2, 2016, a proposed class action lawsuit ( Reynolds, et al v. Resolute Forest Products Inc., Resolute FP US Inc., Resolute FP US Health and Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan ) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (“District Court”) on behalf of certain Medicare-eligible retirees who were previously unionized employees of our Calhoun, Catawba, and Coosa Pines mills, and their spouses and dependents (the “proposed class”). The plaintiffs allege that the modifications described above breach the collective bargaining agreements and plan covering the members of the proposed class in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of the health care benefits as in effect before January 1, 2015, for the proposed class in the lawsuit. On May 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss was denied by the District Court on March 1, 2017. On June 28, 2017, a settlement agreement in principle was reached between the parties to the lawsuit. Because the settlement will resolve the claims of the proposed class, court approval of the settlement will be required. A final settlement order issued by the court would result in an amendment of our U.S. OPEB plan and a corresponding increase to both “Pension and other postretirement benefit obligations” and “Accumulated other comprehensive loss” in our Consolidated Balance Sheet, with any such increase to be recorded at the date the plan amendment is adopted. We do not expect that the resulting increase would have a material impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements. Fibrek acquisition Effective July 31, 2012, we completed the final step of the transaction pursuant to which we acquired the remaining 25.4% of the outstanding Fibrek Inc. (“Fibrek”) shares, following the approval of Fibrek’s shareholders on July 23, 2012, and the issuance of a final order of the Quebec Superior Court in Canada approving the arrangement on July 27, 2012. Certain former shareholders of Fibrek exercised (or purported to exercise) rights of dissent in respect of the transaction, asking for a judicial determination of the fair value of their claim under the Canada Business Corporations Act . No consideration has to date been paid to the former Fibrek shareholders who exercised (or purported to exercise) rights of dissent. Any such consideration will only be paid out upon settlement or judicial determination of the fair value of their claims and will be paid entirely in cash. Accordingly, we cannot presently determine the amount that ultimately will be paid to former holders of Fibrek shares in connection with the proceedings, but we have accrued approximately Cdn $14 million ( $11 million , based on the exchange rate in effect on September 30, 2017 ) for the eventual payment of those claims. The hearing in this matter is expected to begin in 2019. Partial wind-ups of pension plans On June 12, 2012, we filed a motion for directives with the Quebec Superior Court, the court with jurisdiction in the creditor protection proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (the “CCAA Creditor Protection Proceedings”), seeking an order to prevent pension regulators in each of Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador from declaring partial wind-ups of pension plans relating to employees of former operations in New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador, or a declaration that any claim for accelerated reimbursements of deficits arising from a partial wind-up is a barred claim under the CCAA Creditor Protection Proceedings. We contend, among other things, that any such declaration, if issued, would be inconsistent with the Quebec Superior Court’s sanction order confirming the CCAA debtors’ CCAA Plan of Reorganization and Compromise , as amended, and the terms of our emergence from the CCAA Creditor Protection Proceedings. A partial wind-up would likely shorten the period in which any deficit within those plans, which could reach up to Cdn $150 million ( $120 million , based on the exchange rate in effect on September 30, 2017 ), would have to be funded if we do not obtain the relief sought. No hearing date has been set to date. Environmental matters We are subject to a variety of federal or national, state, provincial and local environmental laws and regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate. We believe our operations are in material compliance with current applicable environmental laws and regulations. Environmental regulations promulgated in the future could require substantial additional expenditures for compliance and could have a material impact on us, in particular, and the industry in general. We may be a “potentially responsible party” with respect to four hazardous waste sites that are being addressed pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (commonly known as Superfund) or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act corrective action authority. We believe we will not be liable for any significant amounts at any of these sites. We have recorded $8 million of environmental liabilities as of both September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , primarily related to environmental remediation related to closed sites. The amount of these liabilities represents management’s estimate of the ultimate settlement based on an assessment of relevant factors and assumptions and could be affected by changes in facts or assumptions not currently known to management for which the outcome cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. These liabilities are included in “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” or “Other liabilities” in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. We have also recorded $24 million and $23 million of asset retirement obligations as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , respectively, primarily consisting of liabilities associated with landfills, sludge basins and the dismantling of retired assets. These liabilities are included in “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” or “Other liabilities” in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Other matters On October 30, 2014, we received a notice from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry of Ontario (the “MNRF”) directing us to repay a conditional amount of Cdn $23 million ( $18 million , based on the exchange rate in effect on September 30, 2017 ) offered to us in 2007 toward the construction of an electricity-producing turbine, should we fail to restart our Fort Frances, Ontario, pulp and paper mill or otherwise implement an alternative remedy acceptable to the MNRF. Several extensions of the deadline to implement an alternative remedy were granted to us by the MNRF, the last of which extended the remedy date to June 30, 2017. However, as a result of an agreement reached on June 29, 2017, we will not be required to repay this amount. |