Contingencies | 6 Months Ended |
Jun. 30, 2014 |
Loss Contingency [Abstract] | ' |
Contingencies | ' |
Contingencies |
|
As a global company serving consumers in more than 200 countries and territories, the Company is routinely subject to a wide variety of legal proceedings. These include disputes relating to intellectual property, contracts, product liability, marketing, advertising, foreign exchange controls, antitrust and trade regulation, as well as labor and employment, environmental and tax matters and consumer class actions. Management proactively reviews and monitors the Company’s exposure to, and the impact of, environmental matters. The Company is party to various environmental matters and, as such, may be responsible for all or a portion of the cleanup, restoration and post-closure monitoring of several sites. |
|
As a matter of course, the Company is regularly audited by the IRS and other tax authorities around the world in countries where it conducts business. In this regard, all U.S. federal income tax returns through December 31, 2009 have been audited by, and settled with, the IRS. With a few exceptions, the Company is no longer subject to U.S., state and local income tax examinations for the years prior to 2009. In addition, the Company has subsidiaries in various foreign jurisdictions that have statutes of limitations for tax audits generally ranging from three to six years. |
|
The Company establishes accruals for loss contingencies when it has determined that a loss is probable and that the amount of loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. Any such accruals are adjusted thereafter as appropriate to reflect changes in circumstances. |
|
The Company also determines estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses in excess of related accrued liabilities, if any, when it has determined that a loss is reasonably possible and it is able to determine such estimates. For those matters disclosed below, the Company currently estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of any accrued liabilities is $0 to approximately $250 (based on current exchange rates). The estimates included in this amount are based on the Company’s analysis of currently available information and, as new information is obtained, these estimates may change. Due to the inherent subjectivity of the assessments and the unpredictability of outcomes of legal proceedings, any amounts accrued or included in this aggregate amount may not represent the ultimate loss to the Company from the matters in question. Thus, the Company’s exposure and ultimate losses may be higher or lower, and possibly significantly so, than the amounts accrued or the range disclosed above. |
|
Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of loss contingencies arising from the matters discussed herein will have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or its ongoing results of operations or cash flows. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties noted above, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows for any particular quarter or year. |
Brazilian Matters |
|
There are certain tax and civil proceedings outstanding, as described below, related to the Company’s 1995 acquisition of the Kolynos oral care business from Wyeth (the “Seller”). |
|
The Brazilian internal revenue authority has disallowed interest deductions and foreign exchange losses taken by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary for certain years in connection with the financing of the Kolynos acquisition. The tax assessments with interest, at the current exchange rate, are approximately $125. The Company has been disputing the disallowances by appealing the assessments within the internal revenue authority’s appellate process with the following results to date: |
|
| |
▪ | In June 2005, the First Board of Taxpayers ruled in the Company’s favor and allowed all of the previously claimed deductions for 1996 through 1998. In March 2007, the First Board of Taxpayers ruled in the Company’s favor and allowed all of the previously claimed deductions for 1999 through 2001. The tax authorities appealed these decisions to the next administrative level. |
| |
▪ | In August 2009, the First Taxpayers’ Council (the next and final administrative level of appeal) overruled the decisions of the First Board of Taxpayers, upholding the majority of the assessments, disallowing a portion of the assessments and remanding a portion of the assessments for further consideration by the First Board of Taxpayers. |
|
The Company has filed a motion for clarification with a special appeals chamber of the Taxpayers’ Council, and further appeals are available within the Brazilian federal courts. The Company intends to challenge these assessments vigorously. Although there can be no assurances, management believes, based on the opinion of its Brazilian legal counsel and other advisors, that the disallowances are without merit and that the Company should ultimately prevail on appeal, if necessary, in the Brazilian federal courts. |
|
In 2002, the Brazilian Federal Public Attorney filed a civil action against the federal government of Brazil, Laboratorios Wyeth-Whitehall Ltda. (the Brazilian subsidiary of the Seller) and the Company, as represented by its Brazilian subsidiary, seeking to annul an April 2000 decision by the Brazilian Board of Tax Appeals that found in favor of the Seller’s Brazilian subsidiary on the issue of whether it had incurred taxable capital gains as a result of the divestiture of Kolynos. The action seeks to make the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary jointly and severally liable for any tax due from the Seller’s Brazilian subsidiary. Although there can be no assurances, management believes, based on the opinion of its Brazilian legal counsel, that the Company should ultimately prevail in this action. The Company intends to challenge this action vigorously. |
|
In December 2005, the Brazilian internal revenue authority issued to the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary a tax assessment with interest and penalties of approximately $80, at the current exchange rate, based on a claim that certain purchases of U.S. Treasury bills by the subsidiary and their subsequent disposition during the period 2000 to 2001 were subject to a tax on foreign exchange transactions. The Company is disputing the assessment within the internal revenue authority’s administrative appeals process. In October 2007, the Second Board of Taxpayers, which has jurisdiction over these matters, ruled in favor of the internal revenue authority. In January 2008, the Company appealed this decision, and in January 2012, a special appeals chamber of the Taxpayers’ Council denied the Company’s appeal. The Company has filed a motion for clarification with a special appeals chamber of the Taxpayers’ Council and further appeals are available within the Brazilian federal courts. Although there can be no assurances, management believes, based on the advice of its Brazilian legal counsel, that the tax assessment is without merit and that the Company should prevail on appeal, if not at the administrative level, in the Brazilian federal courts. The Company intends to challenge this assessment vigorously. |
Competition Matters |
|
European Competition Matters |
|
Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries in Europe are subject to investigations, and in some cases, fines by governmental authorities in a number of European countries related to potential competition law violations. The Company understands that substantially all of these matters also involve other consumer goods companies and/or retail customers. The status of the various pending matters is discussed below. |
|
Fines have been imposed on the Company in the following matters, although, as noted below, the Company has appealed each of these fines: |
| |
▪ | In December 2009, the Swiss competition law authority imposed a fine of $6 on the Company’s GABA subsidiary for alleged violations of restrictions on parallel imports into Switzerland, which the Company appealed. In January 2014, this appeal was denied. The Company is appealing before the Swiss Supreme Court. |
| |
▪ | In January 2010, the Company’s Spanish subsidiary was fined $3 by the Spanish competition law authority on the basis that it had entered an agreement with other shower gel manufacturers regarding product downsizing, which the Company contested. The fine was annulled by the Court of Appeal in July 2013. The Spanish competition law authority is appealing this judgment before the Spanish Supreme Court. |
| |
▪ | In December 2010, the Italian competition law authority found that 16 consumer goods companies, including the Company’s Italian subsidiary, exchanged competitively sensitive information in the cosmetics sector, for which the Company’s Italian subsidiary was fined $3. The Company is appealing the fine in the Italian courts. |
| |
▪ | In March 2012, the French competition law authority found that three pet food producers, including the Company’s Hill’s French subsidiary, had violated the competition law, for which it imposed a fine of $7 on the Company’s Hill’s French subsidiary for alleged restrictions on exports from France, which the Company contested. In October 2013, the Company’s appeal was denied. The Company is appealing before the French Supreme Court. |
|
Currently, formal claims of violations, or statements of objections, are pending against the Company as follows: |
| |
▪ | In October 2012, the Belgian competition law authority alleged that 11 branded goods companies, including the Company’s Belgian subsidiary, assisted retailers to coordinate their retail prices on the Belgian market. The Company is in the process of responding to this statement of objections. |
| |
▪ | In June 2013, the French competition law authority issued a statement of objections alleging that the Company’s French subsidiary and a number of its competitors exchanged sensitive information related to the French home care and personal care sectors. The Company has responded to this statement of objections. |
| |
▪ | In July 2014, the Greek competition law authority issued a statement of objections alleging the Company and its Greek subsidiary restricted parallel imports into Greece. The Company is in the process of reviewing the statement of objections. Since the amount of any potential losses from this matter currently cannot be estimated, the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities disclosed above does not include any amount relating to this matter. |
|
|
Since December 31, 2013, the following matter has been resolved: |
| |
▪ | In January 2014, the French Court of Appeal confirmed the French competition law authority’s December 2011 fine of the Company’s French subsidiary, in the amount of $46, in connection with a divested heavy duty detergent business. |
|
Australian Competition Matter |
|
In December 2013, the Australian competition law authority instituted civil proceedings in the Sydney registry of the Federal Court of Australia alleging that three consumer goods companies, including the Company’s Australian subsidiary, a retailer and a former employee of the Company’s Australian subsidiary violated the Australian competition law by coordinating the launching and pricing of ultra concentrated laundry detergents. The Company intends to challenge these proceedings vigorously. Since the amount of any potential losses from these proceedings currently cannot be estimated, the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities disclosed above does not include any amount relating to these proceedings. |
|
The Company’s policy is to comply with antitrust and competition laws and, if a violation of any such laws is found, to take appropriate remedial action and to cooperate fully with any related governmental inquiry. Competition and antitrust law investigations often continue for several years and can result in substantial fines for violations that are found. While the Company cannot predict the final financial impact of these competition law issues as these matters may change, the Company evaluates developments in these matters quarterly and accrues liabilities as and when appropriate. |
|
Talcum Powder Matters |
|
The Company is a defendant in a number of civil actions alleging that certain talc products it sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos. Since 2008, the Company has challenged and will continue to challenge these cases vigorously, and although there can be no assurances, it believes, based on the advice of its legal counsel, that they are without merit and the Company should ultimately prevail. Currently, there are 15 single plaintiff cases pending against the Company in state courts in California, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and New York and one case pending in federal court in North Carolina. Fifteen similar cases previously filed against the Company have been dismissed and final judgment entered in favor of the Company. To date, there have been no findings of liability against the Company in any of these cases. Since the amount of any potential losses from these cases at trial currently cannot be estimated, the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities disclosed above does not include any amount relating to these cases. |
|
In 2014, two of these cases are tentatively scheduled to go to trial, although the Company may succeed in dismissing one or both of them prior to trial. As stated above, the Company believes that it should ultimately prevail as it has in all similar cases. |
|
ERISA Matters |
|
In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees’ Retirement Income Plan (the “Plan”) do not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against the Plan and the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Specifically, Proesel, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees’ Retirement Income Plan, et al. alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions, age discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of benefits to Plan participants. |
|
Two other putative class actions filed earlier in 2007, Abelman, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees’ Retirement Income Plan, et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees’ Retirement Income Plan, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both alleging improper calculation of lump sum distributions and, in the case of Abelman, claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, were transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-Palmolive ERISA Litigation. The complaint in the consolidated action alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, but does not include a claim for age discrimination. The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. In October 2013, the parties executed a settlement agreement under which the Plan would pay approximately $40 after application of certain offsets to resolve the litigation. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval. On December 16, 2013, a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, class certification and appointment of class counsel was approved and on July 8, 2014, final approval was granted by the court. The settlement will be implemented following the expiration of a 30-day appeals period, assuming no appeals are filed. The Company and the Plan intend to contest this action vigorously should the settlement not be finalized. |