Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies We and certain of our subsidiaries are subject to numerous contingencies arising in the ordinary course of business. For a discussion of our tax contingencies, see Note 7. Income Taxes . A. Legal Proceedings Our non-tax contingencies include, among others, the following: • Product liability and other product-related litigation, which can include injury, consumer, off-label promotion, antitrust and breach of contract claims. • Commercial and other matters, which can include product-pricing claims and environmental claims and proceedings. • Patent litigation, which typically involves challenges to the coverage and/or validity of our patents or those of third parties on various products or processes. • Government investigations, which can involve regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and in other countries. Certain of these contingencies could result in losses, including damages, fines and/or civil penalties, and/or criminal charges, which could be substantial. We believe that we have strong defenses in these types of matters, but litigation is inherently unpredictable and excessive verdicts do occur. We do not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of certain matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or cash flows in the period in which the amounts are paid. We have accrued for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Substantially all of these contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss can be complex. Consequently, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued. Our assessments are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but the assessment process relies on estimates and assumptions that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause us to change those estimates and assumptions. Amounts recorded for legal and environmental contingencies can result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties and can rely on estimates and assumptions. The principal matters to which we are a party are discussed below. In determining whether a pending matter is significant for financial reporting and disclosure purposes, we consider both quantitative and qualitative factors in order to assess materiality, such as, among other things, the amount of damages and the nature of any other relief sought in the proceeding, if such damages and other relief are specified; our view of the merits of the claims and of the strength of our defenses; whether the action purports to be a class action and our view of the likelihood that a class will be certified by the court; the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending; any experience that we or, to our knowledge, other companies have had in similar proceedings; whether disclosure of the action would be important to a reader of our financial statements, including whether disclosure might change a reader’s judgment about our financial statements in light of all of the information about the company that is available to the reader; the potential impact of the proceeding on our reputation; and the extent of public interest in the matter. In addition, with respect to patent matters, we consider, among other things, the financial significance of the product protected by the patent. PregSure ® We have received in total approximately 255 claims in Europe and New Zealand seeking damages related to calves claimed to have died of Bovine Neonatal Pancytopenia (BNP) on farms where PregSure BVD, a vaccine against Bovine Virus Diarrhea (BVD), was used. BNP is a rare syndrome that first emerged in cattle in Europe in 2006. Studies of BNP suggest a potential association between the administration of PregSure and the development of BNP, although no causal connection has been established. The cause of BNP is not known. In 2010 , we voluntarily stopped sales of PregSure BVD in Europe, and recalled the product at wholesalers while investigations into possible causes of BNP continued. In 2011 , after incidences of BNP were reported in New Zealand, we voluntarily withdrew the marketing authorization for PregSure throughout the world. We have settled approximately 158 of these claims for amounts that are not material individually or in the aggregate. Investigations into possible causes of BNP continue and these settlements may not be representative of any future claims resolutions. Ulianopolis, Brazil In February 2012, the Municipality of Ulianopolis (State of Para, Brazil) filed a complaint against Fort Dodge Saúde Animal Ltda. (FDSAL) and five other large companies alleging that waste sent to a local waste incineration facility for destruction, but that was not ultimately destroyed as the facility lost its operating permit, caused environmental impacts requiring cleanup. The Municipality is seeking recovery of cleanup costs purportedly related to FDSAL's share of all waste accumulated at the incineration facility awaiting destruction, and compensatory damages to be allocated among the six defendants. We believe we have strong arguments against the claim, including defense strategies against any claim of joint and several liability. At the request of the Municipal prosecutor, in April 2012, the lawsuit was suspended for one year. Since that time, the prosecutor has initiated investigations into the Municipality's actions in the matter as well as the efforts undertaken by the six defendants to remove and dispose of their individual waste from the incineration facility. On October 3, 2014, the Municipal prosecutor announced that the investigation remained ongoing and outlined the terms of a proposed Term of Reference (a document that establishes the minimum elements to be addressed in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment), under which the companies would be liable to withdraw the waste and remediate the area. On March 5, 2015, we presented our response to the prosecutor’s proposed Term of Reference, arguing that the proposed terms were overly general in nature, and expressing our interest in discussing alternatives to address the matter. The prosecutor agreed to consider our request to engage a technical consultant to conduct an environmental diagnostic of the contaminated area. On May 29, 2015, we, in conjunction with the other defendant companies, submitted a draft cooperation agreement to the prosecutor, which outlined the proposed terms and conditions for the engagement of a technical consultant to conduct the environmental diagnostic. The prosecutor, however, denied the proposal and reiterated his request that each defendant agree to become a signatory to the Term of Reference, as originally proposed. On October 5, 2015, we informed the prosecutor of our decision not to sign the Term Reference and requested a face-to-face meeting to clarify the scope and methodology of the preliminary assessment, to understand the exact reasons for the rejection of our proposal to engage a technical consultant, and to discuss alternative scenarios. The prosecutor granted our request and the meeting was held on November 6, 2015, at which we provided clarifications and additional information. We are in the process of negotiating the terms of the cooperation agreement with the prosecutor, pursuant to which the limited study at the site will be conducted . Lascadoil Contamination in Animal Feed An investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Michigan Department of Agriculture is ongoing to determine how lascadoil, oil for industrial use, made its way into the feed supply of certain turkey and hog feed mills in Michigan. The contaminated feed is believed to have caused the deaths of approximately 50,000 turkeys and the contamination (but not death) of at least 20,000 hogs in August 2014. While it remains an open question as to how the lascadoil made its way into the animal feed, the allegations are that lascadoil intended to be sold for reuse as biofuel was inadvertently sold to producers of soy oil, who in turn, unknowingly sold the contaminated soy oil to fat recycling vendors, who then sold the contaminated soy oil to feed mills for use in animal feed. Indeed, related to the FDA investigation, Shur-Green Farms LLC, a producer of soy oil, recalled certain batches of soy oil allegedly contaminated with lascadoil on October 13, 2014. During the course of its investigation, the FDA identified the process used to manufacture Zoetis’ Avatec® (lasalocid sodium) and Bovatec® (lasalocid sodium) products as one possible source of the lascadoil, since lascadoil contains small amounts of lasalocid, the active ingredient found in both products. Zoetis has historically sold any and all industrial lascadoil byproduct to an environmental company specializing in waste disposal. The environmental company is contractually obligated to incinerate the lascadoil or resell it for use in biofuel. Under the terms of the agreement, the environmental company is expressly prohibited from reselling the lascadoil to be used as a component in food. The FDA inspected the Zoetis site where Avatec and Bovatec are manufactured, and found no evidence that Zoetis was involved in the contamination of the animal feed. On March 10, 2015, plaintiffs Restaurant Recycling, LLC (Restaurant Recycling) and Superior Feed Ingredients, LLC (Superior), both of whom are in the fat recycling business, filed a complaint in the Seventeenth Circuit Court for the State of Michigan against Shur-Green Farms alleging negligence and breach of warranty claims arising from their purchase of soy oil allegedly contaminated with lascadoil. Plaintiffs resold the allegedly contaminated soy oil to turkey feed mills for use in feed ingredient. Plaintiffs also named Zoetis as a defendant in the complaint alleging that Zoetis failed to properly manufacture its products and breached an implied warranty that the soy oil was fit for use at turkey and hog mills. Zoetis was served with the complaint on June 3, 2015, and we filed our answer, denying all allegations, on July 15, 2015. On August 10, 2015, several of the turkey feed mills filed a joint complaint against Restaurant Recycling, Superior, Shur-Green Farms and others, alleging claims for negligence, misrepresentation, and breach of warranty, arising out of their alleged purchase and use of the contaminated soy oil. The complaint raises only one count against Zoetis for negligence. We filed an answer to the complaint on November 2, 2015, denying the allegation. We believe we have strong arguments against all claims. Other Matters The European Commission published a decision on alleged competition law infringements by several human health pharmaceutical companies on June 19, 2013. One of the involved legal entities is Alpharma LLC (previously having the name Zoetis Products LLC). Alpharma LLC's involvement is solely related to its human health activities prior to Pfizer's acquisition of King/Alpharma. Zoetis paid a fine in the amount of Euro 11 million (approximately $ 14 million ) and was reimbursed by Pfizer in accordance with the Global Separation Agreement between Pfizer and Zoetis, which provides that Pfizer is obligated to indemnify Zoetis for any liabilities arising out of claims not related to its animal health assets. We filed an appeal of the decision on September 6, 2013. In July 2014, we reached a commercial settlement with several large poultry customers in Mexico associated with specific lots of a Zoetis poultry vaccine. Although there have been no quality or efficacy issues with the manufacturing of this vaccine, certain shipments from several lots in Mexico may have experienced an issue in storage with a third party in Mexico that could have impacted their efficacy. We issued a recall of these lots in July 2014 and the product is currently unavailable in Mexico. We recorded a $13 million charge in Other (income)/deductions—net in the second quarter of 2014, and we do not expect any significant additional charges related to this issue. In the third quarter of 2014, we were notified of an insurance recovery of $1 million and have recorded this in Other (income)/deductions—net . On March 30, 2015, we were served with a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by two additional customers in Mexico, alleging damages suffered as a result of the use of poultry vaccines obtained from the recalled lots discussed above. We have moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on grounds that the complaint fails to properly state a claim on which relief can be granted. On September 16, 2015, the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all claims arising out of tort or fraud. As a result, the only claims remaining in the lawsuit are based in contract, namely breach of express warranty, breach of certain implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. B. Guarantees and Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business and in connection with the sale of assets and businesses, we indemnify our counterparties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with the transaction or related to activities prior to the transaction. These indemnifications typically pertain to environmental, tax, employee and/or product-related matters and patent-infringement claims. If the indemnified party were to make a successful claim pursuant to the terms of the indemnification, we would be required to reimburse the loss. These indemnifications are generally subject to threshold amounts, specified claim periods and other restrictions and limitations. Historically, we have not paid significant amounts under these provisions and, as of April 3, 2016 , recorded amounts for the estimated fair value of these indemnifications were not significant. |