| Commitments and Contingencies | 19. Commitments and Contingencies The Company has purchase obligations related to commitments to purchase certain goods and services. At September 25, 2015 , such obligations were as follows: Fiscal 2016 $ 125.9 Fiscal 2017 51.4 Fiscal 2018 49.8 Fiscal 2019 7.9 Fiscal 2020 — The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, including patent infringement claims, product liability matters, environmental matters, employment disputes, contractual disputes and other commercial disputes, including those described below. The Company believes that these legal proceedings and claims likely will be resolved over an extended period of time. Although it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these matters, the Company believes, unless indicated below, given the information currently available, that their ultimate resolution will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Governmental Proceedings In November 2011 and October 2012, the Company received subpoenas from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration requesting production of documents relating to its suspicious order monitoring program. The United States Attorney’s Office (the “USAO”) for the Eastern District of Michigan is investigating the possibility of the Company failing to report suspicious orders of controlled substances during the period 2006-2011 in violation of the Controlled Substances Act and its related regulations. The USAO for the Northern District of New York and Office of Chief of Counsel for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration are investigating the possibility of the Company failing to maintain appropriate records and security measures with respect to manufacturing of certain controlled substances at its Hobart facility during the period 2012-2013. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of this matter, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the ultimate resolution, after taking into account amounts already accrued, could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In September 2012, Questcor received a subpoena from the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for information relating to its promotional practices. Questcor has also been informed by the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that the USAO for the Southern District of New York and the SEC are participating in the investigation to review Questcor's promotional practices and related matters. On March 9, 2015, the Company received a "No Action" letter from the SEC regarding its review of the Company's promotional practices. In June 2014, Questcor received a subpoena and Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") from the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") seeking documentary materials and information regarding the FTC's investigation into whether Questcor's acquisition of certain rights to develop, market, manufacture, distribute, sell and commercialize Synacthen Depot® from Novartis AG and Novartis Pharma AG (collectively, "Novartis") violates antitrust laws. Subsequently, a small number of states commenced similar investigations focused on whether the transaction violates state antitrust laws. The Company is not aware of any existing or pending litigation in connection with these investigations. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of this matter, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the ultimate resolution, after taking into account amounts already accrued, could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In March 2014, the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania requested the production of documents related to an investigation of the potential promotion of Therakos’ immunotherapy drug/device system UVADEX/UVAR XTS and UVADEX/CELLEX (collectively, the “Therakos System”), for indications not approved by the FDA, including the treatment of patients with graft versus host disease (“GvHD”) and solid organ transplant patients, including pediatric patients. The investigation also includes Therakos’ efforts to secure FDA approval for additional uses of, and alleged quality issues relating to, UVADEX/UVAR. In August 2015, the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania sent Therakos a subsequent request for documents related to the investigation and we are in the process of responding to that request. In November 2014, the Company received a CID from the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division of the Texas Attorney General's Office. According to the CID, the Attorney General's office is investigating the possibility of false reporting of information by the Company regarding the prices of certain of its drugs used by Texas Medicaid to establish reimbursement rates for pharmacies that dispensed the Company's drugs to Texas Medicaid recipients. We are in the process of responding to each of the subpoenas and the CIDs and we intend to cooperate fully in each such investigation. Mallinckrodt Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration and United States of America. The Company filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("the Complaint") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Greenbelt Division against the FDA and the United States of America in November 2014 for judicial review of what the Company believes is the FDA's inappropriate and unlawful reclassification of the Company's Methylphenidate HCl Extended-Release tablets USP (CII) ("Methylphenidate ER") in the Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence ("Orange Book") on November 13, 2014. In its Complaint, the Company has asked the court to: issue an injunction to (a) set aside the FDA's reclassification of the Company's Methylphenidate ER products from freely substitutable at the pharmacy level (class AB) to presumed to be therapeutically inequivalent (class BX) in the Orange Book and (b) prohibit the FDA from reclassifying the Company's Methylphenidate ER products in the future without following applicable legal requirements; and issue a declaratory judgment that the FDA's action reclassifying the Company's Methylphenidate ER products in the Orange Book is unlawful. The Company concurrently filed a motion with the same court requesting an expedited hearing to issue a temporary restraining order ("TRO") directing the FDA to reinstate the Orange Book AB rating for the Company's Methylphenidate ER products on a temporary basis. The court denied the Company's motion for a TRO. In December 2014, the FDA filed a motion to dismiss the Compliant with the district court. The Company filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss in January 2015, and concurrently filed a motion for summary judgment. On July 29, 2015, the court granted the FDA’s motion to dismiss with respect to three of the five counts in the Complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the FDA with respect to the two remaining counts. The Company has appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Patent/Antitrust Litigation Tyco Healthcare Group LP, et al. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. In March 2007, the Company filed a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., et al. (collectively, "Mutual") after Mutual submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") to the FDA seeking to sell a generic version of the Company's 7.5mg RESTORIL™ sleep aid product. Mutual also filed antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims. The patents at issue have since expired or been found invalid. The trial court issued an opinion and order granting the Company's motion for summary judgment regarding Mutual's antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims. Mutual appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit issued a split decision, affirming the trial court in part and remanding to the trial court certain counterclaims for further proceedings. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment with the U.S. District Court regarding the remanded issues. In May 2015, the trial court issued an opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part the Company’s motion for summary judgment. '222 and '218 Patent Litigation: Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC. In August 2011, Cadence, a subsidiary of the Company, and Pharmatop, the owner of the two U.S. patents licensed exclusively by Cadence, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC, Exela PharmaSci, Inc. and Exela Holdings, Inc. (collectively, "Exela"), alleging that Exela infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,028,222 ("the '222 patent") and 6,992,218 ("the '218 patent"), by submitting an ANDA to the FDA seeking to sell a generic version of Ofirmev. The filing of the lawsuit triggered a stay of FDA approval of the Exela ANDA until the earlier of the expiration of a 30-month period, the expiration of the '222 and '218 patents, the entry of a settlement order or consent decree stating that the '222 and '218 patents are invalid or not infringed, a decision in the case concerning infringement or validity that is favorable to Exela, or such shorter or longer period as the court may order. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Cadence in November 2013 and found that Exela's ANDA infringed the '222 and '218 patents. Exela appealed the decision and oral arguments in the appeal occurred in November 2014. In March 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision. '222 and '218 Patent Litigation: InnoPharma Licensing LLC and InnoPharma, Inc. In September 2014, Cadence and Mallinckrodt IP, subsidiaries of the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against InnoPharma Licensing LLC and InnoPharma, Inc. (collectively "InnoPharma") following receipt of an August 2014 notice from InnoPharma concerning its submission of a New Drug Application (“NDA”), containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Ofirmev. '222 and '218 Patent Litigation: Agila Specialties Private Limited, Inc. and Agila Specialties Inc. (a Mylan Inc. Company), (collectively “Agila”). In December 2014, Cadence and Mallinckrodt IP, subsidiaries of the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Agila following receipt of a November 2014 notice from Agila concerning its submission of a NDA containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Ofirmev. The Company intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to Ofirmev to prevent the marketing of infringing generic or competing products prior to the expiration of the Cadence patents. An adverse outcome in either the Exela or InnoPharma matters ultimately could result in the launch of one or more generic versions of Ofirmev before the expiration of the last of the listed patents on June 6, 2021 (or December 6, 2021 if pediatric exclusivity is granted), which could adversely affect the Company's ability to successfully maximize the value of Ofirmev and have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. '222 and '218 Patents: Ex Parte Reexamination. In September 2012, Exela filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the '222 patent and the USPTO granted that request. The reexamination process requires the USPTO to consider the scope and validity of the patent based on substantial new questions of patentability raised by a third-party or the USPTO. Cadence and Pharmatop have filed, with the USPTO, a patent owner's statement commenting on the reexamination request, and thereafter the parties made various submissions. In March 2015, the USPTO issued an ex parte reexamination certificate for the '222 patent listing the claims that resulted from the reexamination proceeding. In addition, in January 2014, an unidentified third-party filed, with the USPTO, a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the '218 patent. The reexamination request was granted. In July 2014, the USPTO issued a Non-Final Office Action in the '218 reexamination in which it rejected certain claims. In September 2014, Cadence and Pharmatop filed an Amendment and Response to the Office Action. Cadence and Pharmatop filed a supplemental response in January 2015. In June 2015, the USPTO issued a Final Office Action confirming that effectively all of the original claims were patentable, and Cadence and Pharmatop subsequently filed an Amendment and Response to the Final Office Action. On July 15, 2015, the USPTO confirmed in the reexamination proceeding for the '218 patent that original claims 1-10 and 12-19 as well as amended original dependent claim 11 and six new dependent claims are all patentable. In August 2015, the USPTO issued an ex parte reexamination certificate for the '218 patent listing the claims that resulted from the reexamination proceeding. Because the Company and Pharmatop believe that the scope and validity of the patent claims in the '222 reexamination certificate and the '218 patent reexamination certificate are appropriate and that the USPTO's prior issuances of the patents were correct, the Company, in conjunction with Pharmatop, will vigorously defend these patents. '218 Patent Litigation: Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC. In April 2012, Exela filed suit against David J. Kappos and the USPTO in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for declaratory judgment seeking a reversal of the USPTO's decision not to act on a petition by Exela to vacate the USPTO's April 2003 order reviving the international application for the '218 patent. The lawsuit followed the USPTO's rejection of Exela's petition to the USPTO filed in November 2011, which sought to vacate the April 2003 order. The USPTO determined that Exela lacked standing to seek such relief. Exela also seeks declaratory judgment that the USPTO's rules and regulations that allow for revival of abandoned, international patent applications under the "unintentional" standard are invalid, and seeks similar relief in connection with one or more counterclaims it has filed in the Delaware litigation. Cadence intervened in this lawsuit and in December 2012, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Exela appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and oral arguments were held in February 2014. In March 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Exela complaint. '222 and '218 Patent Litigation Settlements. Four other similar cases involving generic and/or competing versions of Ofirmev have previously settled. In each settlement, the defendant was granted the non-exclusive right to market a generic intravenous acetaminophen product in the U.S. under its respective ANDA after December 6, 2020, or earlier under certain circumstances. In connection with those settlements, one settling party was granted the exclusive right of first refusal to negotiate an agreement with Cadence to market an authorized generic of Ofirmev in the U.S. in the event that Cadence elects to launch an authorized generic version of the product. If that settling party elects not to exercise its right of first refusal, Cadence has agreed to grant a similar right of first refusal to another settling party. As part of another settlement, Cadence entered into a supply agreement under which an affiliate of one of the settling parties will develop, manufacture and supply commercial quantities of Ofirmev to the Company if certain regulatory approvals are obtained. Inomax Patents: Inter Partes Review ("IPR") Proceedings. In February 2015 and March 2015, the USPTO issued Notices of Filing Dates Accorded to Petitions for IPR petitions filed by Praxair Distribution, Inc. concerning ten patents covering Inomax. Patent Owner Preliminary responses for all of the IPR petitions were filed in May 2015 and June 2015. On July 29, 2015 the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") issued rulings denying the institution of four of the five IPR petitions challenging the five patents expiring in 2029. The PTAB also issued a ruling on July 29, 2015 that instituted the IPR proceeding in the fifth of this group of patents and the PTAB is statutorily required to complete the IPR process on that patent within one year. On September 22, 2015 the USPTO PTAB issued rulings that instituted the IPR proceedings in each of the second set of five patents that expire in 2031 and the PTAB is statutorily required to complete the IPR process on these five patents within one year. Inomax Patent Litigation: Praxair Distribution, Inc. and Praxair, Inc. (collectively “Praxair”). In February 2015, INO Therapeutics LLC and Ikaria, Inc., subsidiaries of the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Praxair following receipt of a January 2015 notice from Praxair concerning its submission of an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a generic version of Inomax. The Company intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to Inomax to prevent the marketing of infringing generic products prior to the expiration of the patents covering Inomax. An adverse outcome in either the IPRs or the Praxair litigation ultimately could result in the launch of a generic version of Inomax before the expiration of the last of the listed patents on January 6, 2031 (July 6, 2031 including pediatric exclusivity), which could adversely affect the Company's ability to successfully maximize the value of Inomax and have an adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Commercial and Securities Litigation Retrophin Litigation. In January 2014, Retrophin, Inc. ("Retrophin") filed a lawsuit against Questcor in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging a variety of federal and state antitrust violations based on Questcor's acquisition from Novartis of certain rights to develop, market, manufacture, distribute, sell and commercialize Synacthen. In June 2015, the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement, under the terms of which Retrophin agreed to dismiss the litigation with prejudice and Questcor agreed to make a one-time cash payment to Retrophin in the amount of $15.5 million . Glenridge Litigation. In June 2011, Glenridge Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Glenridge”), filed a lawsuit against Questcor in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, alleging that Questcor had underpaid royalties to Glenridge under a royalty agreement related to net sales of Acthar. In August 2012, Questcor filed a separate lawsuit against the three principals of Glenridge, as well as Glenridge, challenging the enforceability of the royalty agreement. In August 2013, the two lawsuits were consolidated into one case in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County. In October 2014, the parties entered into a binding term sheet settling the lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, the royalty rate payable by Questcor was reduced, royalties were capped instead of being payable for so long as Acthar was sold and Questcor agreed to pay Glenridge a reduced amount in satisfaction of royalties Questcor had previously accrued but not paid during the course of the lawsuit. In February 2015, the settlement agreement was finalized, with terms consistent with the October 2014 term sheet. Putative Class Action Securities Litigation. In September 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Questcor and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, et al. , No. SACvl2-1623 DMG (FMOx). The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased Questcor common stock between April 26, 2011 and September 21, 2012. The complaint generally alleges that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors engaged in various acts to artificially inflate the price of Questcor stock and enable insiders to profit through stock sales. The complaint asserts that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors violated sections l0(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act"), by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications other than infantile spasms, the promotion of the sale and use of Acthar in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and nephrotic syndrome, reimbursement for Acthar from third-party insurers, and Questcor's outlook and potential market growth for Acthar. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief against the defendants. This lawsuit has been consolidated with four subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims under the caption: In re Questcor Securities Litigation , No. CV 12-01623 DMG (FMOx). In October 2013, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Questcor's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In October 2013, Questcor filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint and fact discovery was concluded in January 2015. In April 2015, the parties executed a long-form settlement agreement, under the terms of which Questcor agreed to pay $38.0 million to resolve the plaintiff claims, inclusive of all fees and costs. Questcor and the individual defendants maintain that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and have entered into the settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted litigation. During fiscal 2015, the Company established a $38.0 million reserve for this settlement, which was subsequently paid to a settlement fund. The court issued its final approval of the settlement on September 18, 2015. Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On October 4, 2012, another alleged shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned Gerald Easton v. Don M Bailey, et al. , No. SACV12-01716 DOC (JPRx). The suit asserts claims substantially identical to those asserted in the do Valle derivative action described below against the same defendants. This lawsuit has been consolidated with five subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims under the caption: In re Questcor Shareholder Derivative Litigation , CV 12- 01716 DMG (FMOx). Following the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated putative securities class action, the court issued an order staying the federal derivative action until the earlier of: (a) 60 days after the resolution of any motion for summary judgment filed in the putative class action lawsuit, (b) 60 days after the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment in the putative class action lawsuit, if none is filed, or (c) the execution of any settlement agreement (including any partial settlement agreement) to resolve the putative class action lawsuit. In July 2015, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the derivative case and Questcor agreed to make a one-time cash payment to plaintiffs in the form of a mootness fee. State Shareholder Derivative Litigation. In October 2012, an alleged shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of Questcor against certain of its officers and directors in the Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County, captioned Monika do Valle v. Virgil D. Thompson, et al. , No. 30-2012-00602258-CU-SL-CXC. The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, mismanagement and waste of corporate assets arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the putative securities class action described above, as well as from allegations relating to sales of Questcor common stock by the defendants and repurchases of Questcor common stock. The complaint sought an unspecified sum of damages and equitable relief. On October 24, 2012, another alleged shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of Questcor against certain of its officers and directors in the Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County, captioned Jones v. Bailey, et al. , Case No. 30-2012-00608001-CU-MC-CXC. The suit asserted claims substantially identical to those asserted in the do Valle derivative action. In February 2013, the court issued an order staying the state derivative actions until the putative federal securities class action and federal derivative actions are resolved. In May 2014, the court granted plaintiffs' request for dismissal without prejudice of the Jones action. In November 2014, the do Valle matter was voluntarily dismissed. Put Options Securities Action. In March 2013, individual traders of put options filed a securities complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned David Taban, et al. v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. SACV13-0425. The complaint generally asserts claims against Questcor and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Exchange Act and for state law fraud and fraudulent concealment based on allegations similar to those asserted in the putative securities class action described above. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages of an unspecified amount. Following the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated putative securities class action, the court issued an order staying this action until the earlier of: (a) sixty ( 60 ) days after the resolution of any motion for summary judgment filed in the putative class action lawsuit, (b) sixty ( 60 ) days after the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment in the putative class action lawsuit, if none is filed, or (c) the execution of any settlement agreement (including any partial settlement agreement) to resolve the putative class action lawsuit. In May 2015, the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement, under the terms of which plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the litigation with prejudice and Questcor agreed to make a one-time cash payment to plaintiffs. Pricing Litigation State of Utah v. Apotex Corp., et al. The Company, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, is a defendant in this matter which was filed in May 2008, and is pending in the Third Judicial Circuit of Salt Lake County, Utah. The State of Utah alleges, generally, that the defendants reported false pricing information in connection with certain drugs that are reimbursable under Utah Medicaid, resulting in overpayment by Utah Medicaid for those drugs, and is seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these claims and is vigorously defending against them. Environmental Remediation and Litigation Proceedings The Company is involved in various stages of investigation and cleanup related to environmental remediation matters at a number of sites, including those described below. The ultimate cost of site cleanup and timing of future cash outlays is difficult to predict, given the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations and alternative cleanup methods. The Company concluded that, as of September 25, 2015 , it was probable that it would incur remedial costs in the range of $39.8 million to $113.1 million . The Company also concluded that, as of September 25, 2015 , the best estimate within this range was $76.5 million , of which $3.2 million was included in accrued and other current liabilities and the remainder was included in environmental liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet at September 25, 2015 . While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these matters, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the final resolution of all known claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Superfund Site, near Marion, Illinois. The Company is a successor in interest to International Minerals and Chemicals Corporation ("IMC"). Between 1967 and 1982, IMC leased portions of the Additional and Uncharacterized Sites ("AUS") Operable Unit at the Crab Orchard Superfund Site ("the Site") from the government and manufactured various explosives for use in mining and other operations. In March 2002, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") (together, "the Government Agencies") issued a special notice letter to General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc. ("General Dynamics"), one of the other potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") at the Site, to compel General Dynamics to perform the remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS") for the AUS Operable Unit. General Dynamics negotiated an Administrative Order on Consent ("AOC") with the Government Agencies to conduct an extensive RI/FS at the Site under the direction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. General Dynamics asserted in August 2004 that the Company is jointly and severally liable, along with approximately eight other lessees and operators at the AUS Operable Unit, for alleged contamination of soils and groundwater resulting from historic operations, and has threatened to file a contribution claim against the Company and other parties for recovery of its costs incurred in connection with the RI/FS activities being conducted at the AUS Operable Unit. The Company and other PRPs who received demand letters from General Dynamics have explored settlement alternatives, but have not reached settlement to date. General Dynamics has completed the RI and the PRPs have entered into an agreement to enter into non-binding mediation. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of this case, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the final resolution of all known claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Mallinckrodt Veterinary, Inc., Millsboro, Delaware. The Company previously operated a plant in Millsboro, Delaware ("the Millsboro Site") that manufactured various animal healthcare products. In 2005, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control found trichloroethylene ("TCE") in the Millsboro public water supply at levels that exceeded the federal drinking water standards. Further investigation to identify the TCE plume in the ground water indicated that the plume has extended to property owned by a third party near the Millsboro Site. The Company, and another former owner, assumed responsibility for the Millsboro Site cleanup under the Alternative Superfund Program administered by the EPA. The Company and another PRP have entered into two AOCs with the EPA to perform investigations to abate, mitigate or eliminate the release or threat of release of hazardous substances at the Millsboro Site and to conduct an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis to characterize the nature and extent of the contamination. The Company, along with the other party, continues to conduct the studies and prepare remediation plans in accordance with the AOCs. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of this matter, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the ultimate resolution of all known claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Coldwater Creek, Saint Louis County, Missouri. The Company is named as a defendant in numerous tort complaints filed in and subsequent to February 2012 with numerous plaintiffs pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. These cases allege personal injury for alleged exposure to radiological substances, including in Coldwater Creek in Missouri, and in the air. Plaintiffs allegedly lived and/or worked in various locations in Saint Louis County, Missouri near |
