Litigation And Other Contingencies | 3 . Litigation and Other Contingencies Litigation A variety of claims have been made against ExxonMobil and certain of its consolidated subsidiaries in a number of pending lawsuits. Management has regular litigation reviews, including updates from corporate and outside counsel, to assess the need for accounting recognition or disclosure of these contingencies. The Corporation accrues an undiscounted liability for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If a range of amounts can be reasonably estimated and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, then the minimum of the range is accrued. The Corporation does not record liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable b ut the amount cannot be reasonably estimated or when the liability is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. For contingencies where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and which are significant, the Corporation discloses the nature o f the contingency and, where feasible, an estimate of the possible loss. For purposes of our contingency disclosures, “significant” includes material matters as well as other matters which management believes should be disclosed. ExxonMobil will continue t o defend itself vigorously in these matters. Based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, the Corporation does not believe the ultimate outcome of any currently pending lawsuit against ExxonMobil will have a material adverse effect upo n the Corporation's operations, financial condition, or financial statements taken as a whole. Other Contingencies The Corporation and certain of its consolidated subsidiaries were contingently liable at March 31, 2017 , for guarantees relating to notes, loans and performance under contracts. Where guarantees for environmental remediation and other similar matters do not include a stated cap, the amounts reflect management’s estimate of the maximum potential exposure. These guarantees are not reasonably likely to have a material effect on the C orporation’s financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources. As of March 31, 2017 Equity Other Company Third Party Obligations (1) Obligations Total (millions of dollars) Guarantees Debt-related 117 30 147 Other 2,667 4,000 6,667 Total 2,784 4,030 6,814 (1) ExxonMobil share Additionally, the Corporation and its affiliates have numerous long-term sales and purchase commitments in their various business activities, all of which are expected to be fulfilled with no adverse consequences material to the Corporation’s operations or financial condition. The operations and earnings of the Corporation and its affiliates throughout the world have been, and may in the future be, affected from time to time in varying degree by political developments and laws and regulations, such as fo rced divestiture of assets; restrictions on production, imports and exports; price controls; tax increases and retroactive tax claims; expropriation of property; cancellation of contract rights and environmental regulations. Both the likelihood of such occ urrences and their overall effect upon the Corporation vary greatly from country to country and are not predictable. In accordance with a nationalization decree issued by Venezuela’s president in February 2007, by May 1, 2007, a subsidiary of the Venezue lan National Oil Company (PdVSA) assumed the operatorship of the Cerro Negro Heavy Oil Project. This Project had been operated and owned by ExxonMobil affiliates holding a 41.67 percent ownership interest in the Project. The decree also required conversion of the Cerro Negro Project into a “mixed enterprise” and an increase in PdVSA’s or one of its affiliate’s ownership interest in the Project, with the stipulation that if ExxonMobil refused to accept the terms for the formation of the mixed enterprise with in a specified period of time, the government would “directly assume the activities” carried out by the joint venture. ExxonMobil refused to accede to the terms proffered by the government, and on June 27, 2007, the government expropriated ExxonMobil’s 41. 67 percent interest in the Cerro Negro Project. On September 6, 2007, affiliates of ExxonMobil filed a Request for Arbitration with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The ICSID Tribunal issued a decision on June 10, 20 10, finding that it had jurisdiction to proceed on the basis of the Netherlands-Venezuela Bilateral Investment Treaty. On October 9, 2014, the ICSID Tribunal issued its final award finding in favor of the ExxonMobil affiliates and awarding $1.6 billion as of the date of expropriation, June 27, 2007, and interest from that date at 3.25% compounded annually until the date of payment in full. The Tribunal also noted that one of the Cerro Negro Project agreements provides a mechanism to prevent double recovery between the ICSID award and all or part of an earlier award of $908 million to an ExxonMobil affiliate, Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd., against PdVSA and a PdVSA affiliate, PdVSA CN, in an arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. On February 2, 2015, Venezuela filed a Request for Annulment of the ICSID award. On March 9, 2017, the ICSID Committee hearing the Request for Annulment issued a decision partially annulling the award of the Tribunal issued on October 9, 2014. The Committee a ffirmed the compensation due for the La Ceiba project and for export curtailments at the Cerro Negro project, but annulled the portion of the award relating to the Cerro Negro Project’s expropriation ($1.4 billion) based on its determination that the prior Tribunal failed to adequately explain why the cap on damages in the indemnity owed by PdVSA did not affect or limit the amount owed for the expropriation of the Cerro Negro project. As a result, ExxonMobil retains an award for $260 million (including accr ued interest). Under the ICSID rules, ExxonMobil may seek to re-arbitrate the issue that was the basis for the annulment in a new ICSID arbitration proceeding. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered judgment on the ICSID award on October 10, 2014. Motions filed by Venezuela to vacate that judgment on procedural grounds and to modify the judgment by reducing the rate of interest to be paid on the ICSID award from the entry of the court’s judgment, until the date of p ayment, were denied on February 13, 2015, and March 4, 2015, respectively. On March 9, 2015, Venezuela filed a notice of appeal of the court’s actions on the two motions. Oral arguments on this appeal were held before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on January 7, 2016. A stay of the District Court’s judgment has continued pending the completion of the Second Circuit appeal. The net impact of these matters on the Corporation’s consolidated financial results cannot be reasonably est imated. Regardless, the Corporation does not expect the resolution to have a material effect upon the Corporation’s operations or financial condition. An affiliate of ExxonMobil is one of the Contractors under a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) covering the Erha block located in the offshore waters of Nigeria. ExxonMobil's affiliate is the oper ator of the block and owns a 56.25 percent interest under the PSC. The Contractors are in dispute with NNPC regarding NNPC's lifting of crude oil in excess of its entitlement under the terms of the PSC. In accordance with the terms of the PSC, the Contract ors initiated arbitration in Abuja, Nigeria, under the Nigerian Arbitration and Conciliation Act. On October 24, 2011, a three-member arbitral Tribunal issued an award upholding the Contractors' position in all material respects and awarding damages to the Contractors jointly in an amount of approximately $1.8 billion plus $234 million in accrued interest. The Contractors petitioned a Nigerian federal court for enforcement of the award, and NNPC petitioned the same court to have the award set aside. On May 22, 2012, the court set aside the award. The Contractors appealed that judgment to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division . On July 22, 2016, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court setting aside the aw ard. On October 21, 2016, the Contractors appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. In June 2013, the Contractors filed a lawsuit against NNPC in the Nige rian federal high court in order to preserve their ability to seek enforcement of the PSC in the courts if necessary. Following dismissal by this court, the Contractors appealed to the Nigerian Court of Appeal in June 2016. I n October 2014 , the Contractors filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to enforce , if necessary, the arbitration award against NNPC assets residing within that jurisdiction. NNPC has moved to dismiss the lawsui t. The stay in the proceedings in the Southern District of New York has been lifted. At this time, the net impact of this matter on the Corporation's consolidated financial results cannot be reasonably estimated. However, regardless of the outcome of enfor cement proceedings, the Corporation does not expect the proceedings to have a material effect upon the Corporation's operations or financial condition. |