| Commitments and Contingencies | 18. Commitments and Contingencies The Company has purchase obligations related to commitments to purchase certain goods and services. At September 30, 2016 , such obligations were as follows: Fiscal 2017 $ 147.5 Fiscal 2018 31.6 Fiscal 2019 20.3 Fiscal 2020 14.1 Fiscal 2021 6.7 The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, including patent infringement claims, product liability matters, personal injury, 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 for controlled substances. The United States Attorney’s Office (the “USAO”) for the Eastern District of Michigan is investigating the possibility that the Company failed 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 Counsel for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration are investigating the possibility that the Company failed 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 related to Acthar. 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 related to Acthar. On March 9, 2015, the Company received a "No Action" letter from the SEC regarding its review of the Company's promotional practices related to Acthar. 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 U.S. 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 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 has since made certain related requests. We are in the process of responding to those requests. 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 have responded to or 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 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 Complaint 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. In July 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 appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On October 18, 2016, the FDA initiated proceedings, proposing to withdraw approval of Mallinckrodt’s Abbreviated New Drug Application for Methylphenidate ER. On October 21, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an Order removing Company’s pending litigation with the FDA from the Court’s oral argument calendar and placing that litigation in abeyance pending the outcome of the withdrawal proceedings. The Company concurrently submitted to the FDA requests for a hearing in the withdrawal proceeding and for a 90-day extension of the deadline for submitting documentation supporting the necessity of a hearing. The FDA has granted the Company’s extension request, with a new deadline of March 19, 2017, and the Company is preparing the supporting documentation for the March submission. The Company plans to vigorously set forth its position in the withdrawal proceedings. 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 7.5 mg 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: InnoPharma Licensing LLC and InnoPharma, Inc. In September 2014, Cadence and Mallinckrodt IP, subsidiaries of the Company, and Pharmatop, the owner of the two U.S. patents licensed exclusively by the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against InnoPharma Licensing LLC and InnoPharma, Inc. (collectively "InnoPharma") alleging that InnoPharma infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,028,222 ("the '222 patent") and 6,992,218 ("the '218 patent") 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, and Pharmatop, the owner of the two U.S. patents licensed exclusively by the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Agila alleging that Agila infringed the '222 and the '218 patents 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 has successfully asserted the ‘222 and ‘218 patents and maintained their validity in both litigation and proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Company will continue to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to Ofirmev to prevent the marketing of infringing generic or competing products prior to December 6, 2020, which, if unsuccessful, could adversely affect the Company's ability to successfully maximize the value of Ofirmev and have an adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. 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 (i.e., five patents expiring in 2029 and five patents expiring in 2031). In July 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 in July 2015 that instituted the IPR proceeding in the fifth of this group of patents and the PTAB ruled in July 2016 that one claim of this patent survived review and is valid while the remaining claims were unpatentable. The Company believes the valid claim describes and encompasses the manner in which Inomax is distributed in conjunction with its approved labeling and that Praxair infringes that claim. Praxair filed an appeal and Mallinckrodt filed a cross-appeal of this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In March 2016, Praxair Distribution, Inc. submitted additional IPR petitions for the five patents expiring in 2029. The PTAB issued non-appealable rulings in August and September 2016 denying institution of all five of these additional IPR petitions. In September 2015 the USPTO PTAB issued rulings that instituted the IPR proceedings in each of the second set of five patents that expire in 2031. In September 2016 the PTAB ruled that all claims in the five patents expiring in 2031 are patentable. 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. In July 2016, the Company filed a second suit against Praxair in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware following receipt of a Paragraph IV notice concerning three additional patents recently added to the FDA Orange Book that was submitted by Praxair regarding its ANDA for a generic version of Inomax. The infringement claims in the second suit have been added to the original suit. In September 2016, the Company filed a third suit against Praxair in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware following receipt of a Paragraph IV notice concerning a fourth patent recently added to the FDA Orange Book that was submitted by Praxair regarding its ANDA for a generic version of Inomax. The Company intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to Inomax in both the IPR and Praxair litigation proceedings 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 February 19, 2034 (August 19, 2034 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 purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased Questcor common stock between April 26, 2011 and September 21, 2012. The complaint generally alleged 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 asserted 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 sought damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief against the defendants. This lawsuit was 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 asserted claims substantially identical to those asserted in the do Valle derivative action described below against the same defendants. This lawsuit was 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 asserted 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 sought 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, was a defendant in this matter which was filed in May 2008, in the Third Judicial Circuit of Salt Lake County, Utah. The State of Utah alleged, generally, that the defendants reported false pricing information in connection with certain drugs that were reimbursable under Utah Medicaid, resulting in overpayment by Utah Medicaid for those drugs, and sought monetary damages and attorneys' fees. The Company believes that it had meritorious defenses to these claims and vigorously defended against them. In December 2015, the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement, under the terms of which the State of Utah agreed to dismiss the litigation with prejudice and the Company agreed to make a one-time cash payment to the State of Utah within the reserve established for this matter. 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 30, 2016 , it was probable that it would incur remediation costs in the range of $38.7 million to $121.3 million . The Company also concluded that, as of September 30, 2016 , the best estimate within this range was $75.9 million , of which $2.6 million was included in accrued and other current liabilities and the remainder was included in environmental liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet at September 30, 2016 . 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 initiated the FS, and the PRPs agreed 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 Coldwater Creek. Radiological residues which may have been present in the creek have previously been remediated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE"). The USACE continues to study and remediate the creek and surrounding areas. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these complaints and is vigorously defending against them. The Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) the proceedings are in intermediate stages; (ii) the Company has not received and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions; and (iii) there are significant factual and scientific issues to be resolved. An initial group of bellwether plaintiffs have been selected by the court and discovery is ongoing. 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. Lower Passaic River, New Jersey . The Company and approximately 70 other companies originally comprised the Lower Passaic Cooperating Parties Group ("the CPG") and are parties to a May 2007 AOC with the EPA to perform a RI/FS of the 17-mile stretch known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area ("the River"). The Company's potential liability stems from former operations at Lodi and Belleville, New Jersey. In June 2007, the EPA issued a draft Focused Feasibility Study ("FFS") that considered interim remedial options for the lower 8-miles of the river, in addition to a "no action" option. As an interim step related to the 2007 AOC, the CPG voluntarily entered into an AOC on June 18, 2012 with the EPA for remediation actions focused solely at mile 10.9 of the River. The Company's estimated costs related to the RI/FS and focused remediation at mile 10.9, based on interim allocations, are immaterial and have been accrued. In April 2014, the EPA issued its revised FFS, with remedial alternatives to address cleanup of the lower 8-mile stretch of the River, which also included a "no action" option. The EPA estimates the cost for the alternatives range from $365.0 million to $ 3.2 billion . The EPA's preferred approach would involve bank-to-bank dredging of the lower 8-mile stretch of the River and installing an engineered cap at a discounted, estimated cost of $ 1.7 billion . Based on the issuance of the EPA's revised FFS, the Company recorded a $ 23.1 million accrual in fiscal 2014 representing the estimate of its allocable share of the joint and several remediation liability resulting from this matter. In April 2015, the CPG presented a draft of the RI/FS of the River to the EPA. The CPG's RI/FS included alternatives that ranged fro |
