COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to various proceedings, lawsuits, claims and other matters, including, for example, those that relate to the environment and health and safety, labor and employment, employee benefits, import/export compliance, patents or other intellectual property, data privacy and security, product liability, commercial disputes and regulatory compliance, among others. Additionally, the Company is subject to diverse and complex laws and regulations, including those relating to corporate governance, public disclosure and reporting, environmental safety and the discharge of materials into the environment, product safety, import and export compliance, data privacy and security, antitrust and competition, government contracting, anti-corruption, and labor and human resources, which are rapidly changing and subject to many possible changes in the future. Compliance with these laws and regulations, including changes in accounting standards, taxation requirements, and federal securities laws among others, may create a substantial burden on, and substantially increase costs to the Company or could have an impact on the Company’s future operating results. The Company has reflected all liabilities when a loss is considered probable and reasonably estimable in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. We do not believe there is a reasonable possibility that losses exceeding amounts already recognized have been incurred, but there can be no assurances that the amounts required to satisfy alleged liabilities from such matters will not impact future operating results. Other than as stated below, the Company does not currently expect to incur material capital expenditures related to such matters. However, there can be no assurances that the actual amounts required to satisfy alleged liabilities from various lawsuits, claims, legal proceedings and other matters, including, but not limited to the Kalamazoo River environmental matter and other matters discussed above and below, and to comply with applicable laws and regulations, will not exceed the amounts reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements or will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, capital expenditures, competitive position, financial condition or cash flows. Environmental Matters The Company’s facilities and operations are subject to a wide range of environmental protection laws, and the Company has investigatory and remedial activities underway at a number of facilities that it currently owns or operates, or formerly owned or operated, to comply, or to determine compliance, with such laws. Also, the Company has been identified, either by a government agency or by a private party seeking contribution to site clean-up costs, as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) at a number of sites pursuant to various state and federal laws, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and comparable state statutes. Following the Spin-Off, the Company will retain the responsibility to manage the identified environmental liabilities and remediations, subject however to an indemnity obligation by Atleos to contribute 50% of the costs of certain environmental liabilities after an annual $15 million funding threshold is met. Other than the Kalamazoo River matter and the Ebina matter discussed below, we currently do not anticipate material expenses and liabilities from these environmental matters. Fox River The Company was one of eight entities that was formally notified by governmental and other entities that it was a PRP for environmental claims (under CERCLA and other statutes) arising out of the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) in sediments in the lower Fox River and in the Bay of Green Bay in Wisconsin. The Company was identified as a PRP because of alleged PCB discharges from two carbonless copy paper manufacturing facilities it previously owned, which were located along the Fox River, and carbonless copy paper “broke” the Company allegedly sold to other mills as raw material. In 2017, the Company entered into a Consent Decree with the federal and state governments for the clean-up of the Fox River, which was approved on August 22, 2017 by the federal district court in Wisconsin presiding over this matter. The Consent Decree resolved the Company’s disputes with the enforcement agencies as well as the other PRPs. All litigation relating to the contribution and enforcement of remediation obligations on the Fox River has been concluded. On October 3, 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency issued the Company a Certificate of Completion certifying that all of the Company’s remedial obligations under the Consent Decree have been completed. The cost of the Fox River remediation has been shared with three parties (the previously reported API having fully satisfied its obligations in 2016, and is now bankrupt): B.A.T. Industries p.l.c. (“BAT”) as co-obligor, and AT&T Corp. (“AT&T”) and Nokia (as the successor to Lucent Technologies and Alcatel-Lucent USA) as indemnitors. Under a 1998 Cost Sharing Agreement and subsequent 2005 arbitration award (collectively, the “Cost Sharing Agreement”), from 2008 through 2014, BAT paid 60% of the cost of the Fox River clean-up and natural resource damages (“NRD”). Pursuant to a September 30, 2014 Funding Agreement (the “Funding Agreement”), BAT funded 50% of the Company’s Fox River remediation costs from October 1, 2014 forward; the Funding Agreement also provides the Company contractual avenues for a future payment of, via direct and third-party sources, (1) the difference between BAT’s 60% obligation under the Cost Sharing Agreement on the one hand and their ongoing (since September 2014) 50% payments under the Funding Agreement on the other, as well as (2) the difference between the amount the Company received under the Funding Agreement and the amount owed to it under the Cost Sharing Agreement for the period from April 2012 through September 2014 (collectively, the “Funding Agreement Receivable”). Pursuant to a June 12, 2015 Letter Agreement, the Company’s contractual avenue for direct payment by BAT was effectively stayed pending completion of other unrelated lawsuits by BAT against third-parties. As of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the Funding Agreement Receivable was approximately $54 million and was included in Other assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The timing of collection of sums related to the receivable is uncertain, subject and pursuant to the terms of the Funding Agreement and related agreements. This receivable is not taken into account in calculating the Company’s Fox River remaining reserve. Additionally, under a 1996 Divestiture Agreement, AT&T and Nokia have been responsible severally (not jointly) for indemnifying the Company for certain portions of the amounts paid by the Company for the Fox River matter over a defined threshold and subject to certain offsets for insurance recoveries and net tax benefits (the “Divestiture Agreement Offsets”), if any. (The Divestiture Agreement governs certain aspects of AT&T’s divestiture of the Company and of what was then known as Lucent Technologies.) Those companies have made the payments requested of them by the Company on an ongoing basis. There could be additional changes to some elements of the Company’s remaining obligation over upcoming periods, in view of a final reconciliation of the Funding Agreement Receivable and the Divestiture Agreement Offsets. Thus, there can be no assurance that unexpected expenditures and liabilities will not have a material effect on the Company’s capital expenditures, earnings, financial condition, cash flows, or competitive position. As of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, we have no remaining liability for remedial obligations for the Fox River matter. As of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the liability subject to final reconciliation with indemnitors under the Divestiture Agreement was approximately $22 million. Kalamazoo River In November 2010, The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) issued a “general notice letter” to the Company with respect to the Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site (“Kalamazoo River site”) in Michigan. Three other companies - International Paper, Mead Corporation, and Consumers Energy - also received general notice letters at or about the same time. USEPA asserts that the site is contaminated by various substances, primarily PCBs, as a result of discharges by various paper mills located along the river. USEPA does not claim that the Company made direct discharges into the Kalamazoo River, and the Company never had facilities at or near the Kalamazoo River site, but USEPA indicated that “NCR may be liable under Section 107 of CERCLA ... as an arranger, who by contract or agreement, arranged for the disposal, treatment and/or transportation of hazardous substances at the Site.” USEPA stated that it “may issue special notice letters to [NCR] and other PRPs for future RI/FS [remedial investigation / feasibility studies] and RD/RA [remedial design / remedial action] negotiations.” In connection with the Kalamazoo River site, in December 2010 the Company, along with two other defendants, was sued in federal court by three GP affiliate corporations in a private-party contribution and cost recovery action for alleged pollution. The suit, pending in Michigan, asks that the Company and other defendants pay a “fair portion” of these companies’ costs. Various removal and remedial actions remain to be decided upon and performed at the Kalamazoo River site, the total costs for which generally remain undetermined; in 2017, Records of Decisions were issued for two parts of the river, and in 2018 such a decision was issued for another part of the river, but such decisions for the majority of the work are expected to be made only over the next several years. The suit alleges that the Company is liable to the GP entities as an “arranger” under CERCLA. The initial phase of the case was tried in a Michigan federal court in February 2013; on September 26, 2013 the court issued a decision that held the Company was liable as an “arranger” as of at least March 1969. (PCB-containing carbonless copy paper was produced from approximately 1954 to April 1971, and the majority of contamination at the Kalamazoo River site had occurred prior to 1969). The Company preserved its right to appeal the September 2013 decision. In the 2013 decision the Court did not determine the Company’s share of the overall liability. Relative shares of liability for the four companies were tried to the court in a subsequent phase of the case in December 2015. In a ruling issued on March 29, 2018, the court addressed responsibility for the costs that GP had incurred in the past, totaling to approximately $50 million (GP had sought approximately $105 million, but $55 million of those claims were removed by the court upon motions filed by the Company and other parties); the Company and GP were each assigned a 40% share of those costs, and the other two companies were assigned 15% and 5% as their allocations. The court entered a judgment in the case on June 19, 2018, in which it indicated that it would not allocate future costs, but would enter a declaratory judgment that the four companies together had responsibility for future costs, in amounts and shares to be determined. Cross-proceedings have been commenced to obtain recoveries from the other parties pursuant to the judgment; those proceedings were stayed pending the appeal referenced below. In July 2018, the Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both the 2013 court decision, which it believes is in conflict with a decision from the Fox River trial court as to Operable Unit 1 of that site and an affirmance of that decision from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the 2018 court decision, on various legal grounds. The Company filed a bond to stay any execution of the judgment pending the appeal, and its application for a stay was approved by the court and remains stayed until the Company filed its dismissal of the appeal on December 31, 2020 pursuant to a Consent Decree, noted below. During the pendency of the Sixth Circuit stay, the Company negotiated a settlement of the Kalamazoo River matter with the USEPA and other government agencies having oversight over the river. On December 5, 2019, the Company entered into a Consent Decree, filed with the District Court on December 11, 2019, and on December 2, 2020, the District Court approved the Consent Decree, which has now resolved all litigation associated with the river clean-up, including the Sixth Circuit appeal. The Consent Decree requires the Company to pay GP its 40% share of past costs, to pay the USEPA and state agencies their past and future administrative costs, and to dismiss its Sixth Circuit appeal. The Consent Decree further requires the Company to take responsibility for the remediation of a portion, but not all, of the Kalamazoo River. The Consent Decree further provides the Company protection from other PRPs, including GP, seeking contribution for their costs associated with the clean-up anywhere on the river, thereby resolving the allocation of future costs left unresolved by the June 19, 2019 judgment. The Company believes it has meritorious claims against BAT under the Cost Sharing Agreement, discussed above, for the Kalamazoo River remediation expenses as a so-called “future site.” To date, BAT has denied that the Kalamazoo River is a “future site.” On February 10, 2023, the Company filed an action against BAT in the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration that the Kalamazoo River is indeed a future site under the Cost Sharing Agreement. The Company will also have indemnity or reimbursement claims against AT&T and Nokia under the arrangement discussed above in connection with the Fox River matter after expenses have met a contractual threshold set out in the 1996 Divestiture Agreement referenced above in the Fox River discussion. The Company believes that contractual threshold was met in December 2022. As of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the total reserve for Kalamazoo was $96 million and $90 million, respectively. The reserve is reported on a basis that is net of expected contributions from the Company’s co-obligors and indemnitors, subject to when the applicable threshold is reached. While the Company believes its co-obligors’ and indemnitors’ obligations are as previously reported, the reserve reflects changes in positions taken by some of those co-obligors and indemnitors with respect to the Kalamazoo River. The contributions from its co-obligors and indemnitors are expected to range from $70 million to $155 million and the Company will continue to pursue such contribution. As many aspects of the costs of remediation will not be determined for several years (and thus the high end of a range of possible costs for many areas of the site cannot be quantified at this time), the Company has made what it considers to be reasonable estimates of the low end of a range for such costs where remedies are identified, and/or of the costs of investigations and studies for areas of the river where remedies have not yet been determined, and the reserve is informed by those estimates. The extent of the Company’s potential liability remains subject to many uncertainties, notwithstanding the settlement of this matter and related Consent Decree noted above, particularly in as much as remedy decisions and cost estimates will not be generated until times in the future and as most of the work to be performed will take place through the 2030s. Under other assumptions or estimates for possible costs of remediation, which the Company does not at this point consider to be reasonably estimable or verifiable, it is possible that the reserve the Company has taken to discontinued operations reflected in this paragraph could more than approximately double the reflected reserve. Ebina The Company is engaged in cooperative regulatory compliance activities with the government of Japan in connection with certain environmental contaminants generated in its past operations in that country. The Company has quantities of PCB and other wastes primarily from its former plant at Oiso, Japan, including capsulated undiluted solutions manufactured in the past, capacitors, light ballasts and PCB-affected soil from the Oiso plant that was excavated and placed in steel drums. These wastes are stored in a facility at Ebina, Japan in accordance with Japanese regulations governing such materials. Over the past several years Japan has enacted and amended legislation governing such wastes, and has set a current deadline for treating and disposing of (at government-constructed disposal facilities) the highest-concentration wastes by 2027. Lower-concentration wastes can be and have been disposed of via private contractors, and as of September 30, 2023, the Company had disposed of approximately 99% of its lower-concentration wastes and approximately 92% of its higher-concentration wastes. The Company and its consultants have met and communicated regularly with the Japanese agency charged with administration of the law, and are working with that agency on a program to manage disposal of the high-concentration wastes, including tests of technologies to make the disposal more efficient. The government has given its final approvals, and the Company started to dispose of the high-concentration wastes in 2021, with final deadlines for various of the government-constructed disposal sites currently set for 2023 and later. Low-concentration wastes are required to be contracted for disposal by 2027, a timetable that the Company expects to meet. In September 2019, the Company’s environmental consultants, following a series of communications and meetings with the Japanese agency, at the Company’s request prepared an estimate of remaining disposal costs over the coming several years. While the estimate is subject to a range of assumptions and uncertainties, including prospects of cost reduction in coordination with the agency as certain field testing to separate high-concentration and low-concentration waste progresses over the coming years, the Company adjusted its existing reserve for the matter to take into account this cost estimate. The reserve as of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022 is $1 million and $7 million, respectively. The Japan environmental waste issue is treated as a compliance matter and not as litigation or enforcement, and the Company has received no threats of litigation or enforcement. Atleos does not have any indemnification obligations to the Company in connection with the Ebina matter, and this remediation is expected to be completed during the remainder of the year or early next year. Environmental-Related Insurance Recoveries In connection with the Fox River and other environmental sites, through September 30, 2023, the Company has received a combined gross total of approximately $212 million in settlements reached with various of its insurance carriers. Portions of many of these settlements agreed in the 2010 through 2013 timeframe are payable to a law firm that litigated the claims on the Company’s behalf. Some of the settlements cover not only the Fox River but also other environmental sites; some are limited to either the Fox River or the Kalamazoo River site. Some of the settlements are directed to defense costs and some are directed to indemnity; some settlements cover both defense costs and indemnity. The Company does not anticipate that further material insurance recoveries specific to Kalamazoo River remediation costs will be available to it, but it has recovered some amounts as a result of settlement discussions with certain carriers. Claims with respect to Kalamazoo River defense costs have now been settled, with the amounts of those settlements included in the sum reported above. Environmental Remediation Estimates It is difficult to estimate the future financial impact of environmental laws, including potential liabilities. The Company records environmental provisions when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount or range of the liability is reasonably estimable; in accordance with accounting guidance, where liabilities are not expected to be quantifiable or estimable for a period of years, the estimated costs of investigating those liabilities are recorded as a component of the reserve for that particular site. Provisions for estimated losses from environmental restoration and remediation are, depending on the site, based generally on internal and third-party environmental studies, estimates as to the number and participation level of other PRPs, the extent of contamination, estimated amounts for attorney and other fees, and the nature of required clean-up and restoration actions. Reserves are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. Management expects that the amounts reserved from time to time will be paid out over the period of investigation, negotiation, remediation and restoration for the applicable sites. The amounts provided for environmental matters in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements are the estimated gross undiscounted amounts of such liabilities, without deductions for indemnity insurance, third-party indemnity claims or recoveries from other PRPs, except as qualified in the following sentences. In those cases where insurance carriers or third-party indemnitors have agreed to pay any amounts and management believes that collectability of such amounts is probable, the amounts are recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. For the Fox River and Kalamazoo River sites, as described above, assets relating to the AT&T and Nokia indemnities and to the BAT obligations are recorded as payment is supported by contractual agreements, public filings and/or payment history. Guarantees and Product Warranties In the ordinary course of business, the Company may issue performance guarantees on behalf of its subsidiaries to certain of its customers and other parties. Some of those guarantees may be backed by standby letters of credit, surety bonds, or similar instruments. In general, under the guarantees, the Company would be obligated to perform, or cause performance, over the term of the underlying contract in the event of an unexcused, uncured breach by its subsidiary, or some other specified triggering event, in each case as defined by the applicable guarantee. The Company believes the likelihood of having to perform under any such guarantee is remote. As of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the Company had no material obligations related to such guarantees, and therefore its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements do not have any associated liability balance. The Company provides its customers a standard manufacturer’s warranty and records, at the time of the sale, a corresponding estimated liability for potential warranty costs. Estimated future obligations due to warranty claims are based upon historical factors, such as labor rates, average repair time, travel time, number of service calls per machine and cost of replacement parts. When a sale is consummated, the total customer revenue is recognized, provided that all revenue recognition criteria are otherwise satisfied, and the associated warranty liability is recorded using pre-established warranty percentages for the respective product classes. Warranty reserve liabilities are presented in Other current liabilities and Other liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. From time to time, product design or quality corrections are accomplished through modification programs. When identified, associated costs of labor and parts for such programs are estimated and accrued as part of the warranty reserve. The Company recorded the activity related to the warranty reserve for the nine months ended September 30 as follows: In millions 2023 2022 Warranty reserve liability Beginning balance as of January 1 $ 13 $ 19 Accruals for warranties issued 11 14 Settlements (in cash or in kind) (14) (19) Ending balance as of September 30 $ 10 $ 14 In addition, the Company provides its customers with certain indemnification rights, subject to certain limitations and exceptions. The Company agrees to defend and indemnify its customers from third-party lawsuits alleging patent or other infringement of Company solutions based on its customers’ use of them. On limited occasions the Company will undertake to indemnify a customer for business, rather than contractual, reasons. From time to time, the Company also enters into agreements in connection with its acquisition and divestiture activities that include indemnification obligations by the Company. The fair value of these indemnification obligations is not readily determinable due to the conditional nature of the Company’s potential obligations and the specific facts and circumstances involved with each particular agreement. Historically, the Company has not recorded a liability in connection with these indemnifications. From time to time, the Company has provided indemnification under these circumstances, none of which has resulted in material liabilities, and the Company expects these indemnities will continue to arise in the future. |