Contingencies | 12 Months Ended |
Dec. 31, 2014 |
Contingencies [Abstract] | |
Contingencies | 17. Contingencies |
|
Litigation The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits, is involved in governmental proceedings, and is subject to regulatory controls arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited to, personal injury claims; property damage claims; title disputes; tax disputes; royalty claims; contract claims; contamination claims relating to oil and gas production, transportation, and processing; and environmental claims, including claims involving assets owned by acquired companies and claims involving assets previously sold to third parties and no longer a part of the Company’s current operations. The Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets include liabilities of $5.3 billion at December 31, 2014, and $854 million at December 31, 2013, for litigation-related contingencies. Anadarko is also subject to various environmental-remediation and reclamation obligations arising from federal, state, and local laws and regulations. While the ultimate outcome and impact on the Company cannot be predicted with certainty, after consideration of recorded expense and liability accruals, management believes that the resolution of pending proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
|
Tronox Litigation On November 28, 2005, Tronox Incorporated (Tronox), at the time a subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation, completed an IPO and was subsequently spun-off from Kerr-McGee Corporation. In August 2006, Anadarko acquired all of the stock of Kerr-McGee Corporation. In January 2009, Tronox and certain of Tronox’s subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court), which is the court that presided over the Adversary Proceeding (defined below). In May 2009, Tronox and certain of its affiliates filed a lawsuit against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, Kerr-McGee) asserting several claims, including claims for actual and constructive fraudulent conveyance (Adversary Proceeding). Tronox alleged, among other things, that it was insolvent or undercapitalized at the date of its IPO and sought, among other things, to recover damages in excess of $18.85 billion from Kerr-McGee and Anadarko, as well as interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. In accordance with Tronox’s Bankruptcy Court-approved Plan of Reorganization (Plan), the Adversary Proceeding was pursued by a litigation trust (Litigation Trust). Pursuant to the Plan, the Litigation Trust was “deemed substituted” for the Tronox plaintiffs in the Adversary Proceeding. For purposes of this Form 10-K, references to “Tronox” after February 2011 refer to the Litigation Trust. |
The U.S. government intervened in the Adversary Proceeding, and in May 2009 asserted separate claims against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA Complaint). The Litigation Trust and the U.S. government agreed that the recovery of damages under the Adversary Proceeding, if any, would cover both the Adversary Proceeding and the FDCPA Complaint. |
|
Liability Accrual On April 3, 2014, Anadarko and Kerr-McGee entered into a settlement agreement with the Litigation Trust and the U.S. government (in its capacity as plaintiff-intervenor and acting for and on behalf of certain U.S. government agencies) to resolve all claims asserted in the Adversary Proceeding and FDCPA Complaint for $5.15 billion, which represents principal of approximately $3.98 billion plus 6% interest from the filing of the Adversary Proceeding on May 12, 2009, through April 3, 2014. In addition, the Company agreed to pay interest on the above amount from April 3, 2014, through the payment of the settlement, with an annual interest rate of 1.5% for the first 180 days and 1.5% plus the one-month LIBOR thereafter. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Litigation Trust, Anadarko, and Kerr-McGee agreed to mutually release all claims that were or could have been asserted in the Adversary Proceeding. The U.S. government (representing federal agencies that filed claims in the Tronox bankruptcy), Anadarko, and Kerr-McGee also provided covenants not to sue each other with respect to certain claims and causes of action. The U.S. government also provided contribution protection from third-party claims seeking reimbursement from Anadarko and certain of its affiliates for the sites identified in the settlement agreement. In January 2015, the Company paid $5.2 billion after the settlement agreement became effective. |
17. Contingencies (Continued) |
|
Anadarko recognized Tronox-related contingent losses of $850 million in the fourth quarter of 2013 and $4.3 billion in the first quarter of 2014. In addition, Anadarko recognized settlement-related interest expense of $60 million, included in Tronox-related contingent loss in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Income, during the year ended December 31, 2014, for an aggregate $5.2 billion Tronox-related contingent liability on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2014. For information on the tax effects of the Tronox settlement agreement, see Note 18—Income Taxes. |
|
Deepwater Horizon Events In April 2010, the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico blew out and an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, resulting in an oil spill. The well was operated by BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BP) and Anadarko held a 25% nonoperated interest. In October 2011, the Company and BP entered into a settlement agreement, mutual releases, and agreement to indemnify relating to the Deepwater Horizon events (Settlement Agreement), under which the Company paid $4.0 billion in cash and transferred its interest in the Macondo well and the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 (Lease) to BP. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against all claims, causes of action, losses, costs, expenses, liabilities, damages, or judgments of any kind arising out of the Deepwater Horizon events, related damage claims arising under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), claims for natural resource damages (NRD) and assessment costs, and any claims arising under the Operating Agreement with BP (OA). This indemnification is guaranteed by BP Corporation North America Inc. (BPCNA) and, in the event that the net worth of BPCNA declines below an agreed-upon amount, BP p.l.c. has agreed to become the sole guarantor. Under the Settlement Agreement, BP does not indemnify the Company against penalties and fines, punitive damages, shareholder derivative or securities laws claims, or certain other claims. |
|
Liability Accrual Below is a discussion of the Company’s current analysis, under applicable accounting guidance, of its potential liability for (i) amounts invoiced by BP under the OA (OA Liabilities), (ii) OPA-related environmental costs, and (iii) other contingent liabilities. Applicable accounting guidance requires the Company to accrue a liability if both (a) it is probable that a liability has been incurred and (b) the amount of that liability can be reasonably estimated. |
The Company is fully indemnified by BP against OPA damage claims, NRD claims and assessment costs, and other potential liabilities. The Company may be required to recognize a liability for these amounts in advance of or in connection with recognizing a receivable from BP for the related indemnity payment. In all circumstances, however, the Company expects that any additional indemnified liability that may be recognized by the Company will be subsequently recovered from BP itself or through the guarantees of BPCNA or BP p.l.c. The Company has not recorded a liability for any costs that are subject to indemnification by BP. |
|
OA Liabilities Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, all amounts deemed by BP to have been due under the OA, as well as all future amounts that otherwise would be invoiced to Anadarko under the OA, have been satisfied. |
|
OPA-Related Environmental Costs BP, Anadarko, and other parties, including parties that do not own an interest in the Lease, such as the drilling contractor, have received correspondence from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) referencing their identification as a “responsible party or guarantor” (RP) under OPA. Under OPA, RPs, including Anadarko, may be jointly and severally liable for costs of well control, spill response, and containment and removal of hydrocarbons, as well as other costs and damage claims related to the spill and spill cleanup. The USCG’s identification of Anadarko as an RP arises as a result of Anadarko’s status as a co-lessee in the Lease. |
Under accounting guidance applicable to environmental liabilities, a liability is presumed probable if the entity is both identified as an RP and associated with the environmental event. The Company’s co-lessee status in the Lease at the time of the event and the subsequent identification and treatment of the Company as an RP satisfies these standards and therefore establishes the presumption that the Company’s potential environmental liabilities related to the Deepwater Horizon events are probable. |
17. Contingencies (Continued) |
|
As BP funds OPA-related environmental costs, any potential joint and several liability for these costs is satisfied for all RPs, including Anadarko. This bears significance in that once these costs are funded by BP, such costs are no longer analyzed as OPA-related environmental costs, but instead are analyzed as OA Liabilities. As discussed above, Anadarko has settled its OA Liabilities with BP. Thus, potential liability to the Company for OPA-related environmental costs can arise only where BP does not, or otherwise is unable to, fund all of the OPA-related environmental costs. Under this scenario, the joint and several nature of the liability for these costs could cause the Company to recognize a liability for OPA-related environmental costs. However, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against these costs (including guarantees by BPCNA or BP p.l.c.). |
|
Gross OPA-Related Environmental Cost Estimate In prior periods through the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company provided an estimated range of gross OPA-related environmental costs for all identified RPs. This estimate was comprised of spill-response costs and OPA damage claims and was derived from cost information received by the Company from BP. The Company no longer receives Deepwater Horizon-related cost and claims data from BP. Accordingly, the OPA-related environmental cost estimate included in BP’s public releases is the best data available to the Company. |
Based on information included in BP p.l.c.’s public release on February 3, 2015, gross OPA-related environmental costs are estimated to be $11.0 billion, excluding (i) amounts BP has already funded, which constitute settled OA Liabilities; (ii) amounts that in BP’s view cannot reasonably be estimated, which include NRD claims and other litigation damages; (iii) non-OPA-related fines and penalties that may be assessed against Anadarko, including assessments under the Clean Water Act (CWA); and (iv) estimated state and local governmental claims, which BP no longer publicly discloses and, as a result, Anadarko cannot estimate. Actual gross OPA-related environmental costs may vary from those estimated by BP p.l.c. in its public releases, perhaps materially from the above estimate. |
|
Allocable Share of Gross OPA-Related Environmental Costs Under applicable accounting guidance, the Company is required to estimate its allocable share of gross OPA-related environmental costs. To date, BP has paid all Deepwater Horizon event-related costs, which satisfies the Company’s potential liability for these costs. Additionally, BP has repeatedly stated publicly and in congressional testimony that it will continue to pay these costs. BP’s funding and public commentary has continued subsequent to the release of BP’s own investigation report, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling’s final report, and the Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation Team final report, which the Company considers to be significant positive indications in assessing the likelihood of BP continuing to fund all of these costs. Based on BP’s stated intent to continue funding these costs, the Company’s assessment of BP’s financial ability to continue funding these costs, and the impact of BP’s settlements with both of its OA partners, the Company believes the likelihood of BP not continuing to satisfy these claims to be remote. Accordingly, the Company considers zero to be its allocable share of gross OPA-related environmental costs and, consistent with applicable accounting guidance, has not recorded a liability for these amounts. |
17. Contingencies (Continued) |
|
Penalties and Fines These costs include amounts that may be assessed as a result of potential civil and/or criminal penalties under various federal, state, and/or local statutes and/or regulations as a result of the Deepwater Horizon events, including, for example, the CWA, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and possibly other federal, state, and local laws. The foregoing does not represent an exhaustive list of statutes and regulations that potentially could trigger a penalty or fine assessment against the Company. To date, no penalties or fines have been assessed against the Company. However, in December 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the United States, filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in New Orleans, Louisiana (Louisiana District Court) against several parties, including the Company, seeking an assessment of civil penalties under the CWA in an amount to be determined by the Louisiana District Court. In February 2012, the Louisiana District Court entered a declaratory judgment that, as a partial owner of the Macondo well, Anadarko is liable for civil penalties under Section 311 of the CWA. The declaratory judgment, which was affirmed in June 2014 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit), addresses liability only, and does not address the amount of any civil penalty. The assessment of a civil penalty against Anadarko will follow a bench trial, which began in January 2015. |
In July 2014, Anadarko filed a motion for rehearing with the Fifth Circuit requesting that the full court sit to reconsider Anadarko’s appeal concerning that portion of the February 2012 declaratory judgment which found Anadarko liable for civil penalties under the CWA. In September 2014, Anadarko filed a letter notifying the Fifth Circuit that the Louisiana District Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the first phase of the Deepwater Horizon trial (Phase I Findings and Conclusions), which included facts that contradict certain key facts assumed by the Fifth Circuit panel in its June 2014 decision. In January 2015, the Fifth Circuit denied the petition for full court reconsideration with six of the thirteen participating justices filing a dissent. |
Applicable accounting guidance requires the Company to accrue a liability if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. The Louisiana District Court’s declaratory judgment in February 2012 satisfies the requirement that a liability arising from the future assessment of a civil penalty against Anadarko is probable. In an effort to resolve this matter, the Company made a settlement offer to the DOJ in July 2014 of $90 million and recorded a contingent liability for this amount at June 30, 2014. The Company subsequently engaged in further discussions regarding settlement, but the parties have not been able to reach agreement on either the amount of, or the terms and conditions governing, a settlement. The Company’s settlement offer of $90 million remains outstanding and the Company remains open to resolving the matter through settlement discussions. The Company believes that $90 million under a settlement scenario is a better estimate of loss at this time than any other amount. Based on the above accounting guidance, the Company’s contingent liability for CWA penalties and fines remains $90 million at December 31, 2014. However, the Company may ultimately incur a liability related to CWA penalties in excess of the current accrued liability. |
The actual amount of a CWA penalty is subject to uncertainty, including whether the Company will be able to reach a settlement with the DOJ or will await the Louisiana District Court’s opinion following the bench trial. The CWA sets forth subjective criteria to be considered by the court in assessing the magnitude of any CWA penalty, including the degree of fault of the owner. In the Phase I and II trials (defined below) and again for the penalty phase trial in January 2015, the Louisiana District Court ruled that no evidence of Anadarko’s alleged culpability or fault may be presented. In addition, in its Phase I Findings and Conclusions, the Louisiana District Court did not allocate any fault to Anadarko. Given the subjective nature of the CWA criteria used to determine penalty assessments and the Louisiana District Court’s prior rulings related to culpability and allocation of fault, the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any such penalty to be assessed or determine a reasonable range of potential loss if the matter is resolved by the Louisiana District Court following trial. However, given the Company’s lack of direct operational involvement in the event, the Louisiana District Court’s rulings excluding any evidence of Anadarko’s alleged culpability or fault, the Phase I Findings and Conclusions that did not allocate any fault to Anadarko, and the subjective criteria of the CWA, the Company believes that any CWA penalties assessed to it will not materially impact the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
17. Contingencies (Continued) |
|
Events or factors that could assist the Company in estimating the amount of settlement or potential civil penalty or a range of potential loss related to such penalty include (i) an assessment by the DOJ, (ii) a ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (iii) substantive settlement negotiations between the Company and the DOJ. |
As discussed below, numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company. Certain state and local governments appealed, or provided indication of a likely appeal of, the Louisiana District Court’s decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. For example, eleven Louisiana Parish District Attorneys appealed that decision to the Fifth Circuit. In February 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied the appeal and upheld the Louisiana District Court’s decision. In October 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the Parish District Attorneys’ petition to review the case. While that denial ends further appeal of that decision by the eleven Parish District Attorneys, any other party subject to the decision who has not yet appealed, including private parties who opted out of the BP settlement, the states, and other local governments, may do so after obtaining a final judgment on their damages claims. If any further appeal is taken and is successful, state and/or local laws and regulations could become sources of penalties or fines against the Company. |
|
Natural Resource Damages This category includes future damage claims that may be made by federal and/or state natural resource trustee agencies at the completion of injury assessments and restoration planning. Natural resources generally include land, fish, water, air, wildlife, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, or otherwise controlled by, the federal, state, or local government. |
The NRD-assessment process is led by government agencies that act as trustees of natural resources on behalf of the public. Government agencies involved in the process include the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Department of Defense. These governmental departments, along with the five affected states – Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas – are referred to as the “Co-Trustees.” The Co-Trustees continue to conduct injury assessment and restoration planning. |
The DOJ civil lawsuit filed against BP, the Company, and others seeks unspecified damages for injury to federal natural resources. Not all of the Co-Trustees were a party to this lawsuit; however, during the second quarter of 2011, the states of Alabama and Louisiana each filed NRD-related state law claims against the Company in the Louisiana District Court. In November 2011, after ruling that only federal law applies, the Louisiana District Court dismissed all the NRD-related state law claims asserted against the Company by the states of Alabama and Louisiana. In April 2013, the states of Texas and Mississippi filed NRD-related state law claims against the Company, which were consolidated in the federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) action before the Louisiana District Court discussed below and are stayed until further order of the Louisiana District Court. |
NRD claims are generally sought after the damage assessment and restoration planning is completed, which may take several years. Thus, the Company remains unable to reasonably estimate the magnitude of any NRD claim. The Company anticipates that BP will satisfy any NRD claim, which eliminates any potential liability to Anadarko for such costs. In the event any NRD damage claim is made directly against Anadarko, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against such claims (including guarantees by BPCNA or BP p.l.c.). |
|
Civil Litigation Damage Claims Numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company by, among others, fishing, boating, and shrimping enterprises and industry groups; restaurants; commercial and residential property owners; certain rig workers or their families; the States of Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, and several of their political subdivisions; the DOJ; environmental non-governmental organizations; and certain Mexican states. Many of the lawsuits filed assert various claims of negligence, gross negligence, and violations of several federal and state laws and regulations, including, among others, OPA; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Clean Air Act; the CWA; and the Endangered Species Act; or challenge existing permits for operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Generally, the plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, punitive damages, declaratory judgment, and/or injunctive relief. |
17. Contingencies (Continued) |
|
This litigation has been consolidated into a federal MDL action pending before Judge Carl Barbier in the Louisiana District Court. In March 2012, BP and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC) entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a substantial majority of the economic loss and medical claims stemming from the Deepwater Horizon events, which the Louisiana District Court approved in orders issued in December 2012 and January 2013. Only OPA claims seeking economic loss damages against the Company remain. In addition, other than those who previously appealed unsuccessfully, certain state and local governments have provided indication of a likely appeal of the Louisiana District Court’s decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. Certain Mexican states also have appealed the dismissal of their claims against BP, the Company, and others. The Company, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, is fully indemnified by BP against losses arising as a result of claims for damages, irrespective of whether such claims are based on federal (including OPA) or state law. |
The first phase of the trial in the MDL (Phase I) commenced in February 2013. The PSC, BP, BP America Production Company (BPAP), BP p.l.c., the United States, state and local governments, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton), and certain subsidiaries of Transocean Ltd. (Transocean) participated in Phase I. Anadarko was excused from participation in Phase I. The issues tried in Phase I included the cause of the blowout and all related events leading up to April 22, 2010, the date the Deepwater Horizon sank, as well as allocation of fault. In September 2014, the Louisiana District Court issued its Phase I Findings and Conclusions. The Louisiana District Court found that BP and BPAP, Transocean, and Halliburton, but not Anadarko, are each liable under general maritime law for the blowout, explosion, and oil spill. The court determined that BP’s and BPAP’s conduct was reckless and that both Transocean’s and Halliburton’s conduct was negligent. The Louisiana District Court apportioned 67% of the fault to BP and BPAP, 30% to Transocean, and 3% to Halliburton. No fault was allocated to Anadarko. BP is challenging certain of the Louisiana District Court’s findings. |
The second phase of trial (Phase II) began in September 2013 and in November 2013 the parties rested their Phase II cases. The issues tried in Phase II included spill-source control and quantification of the spill for the period from April 20, 2010, until the well was capped. The Company, the PSC, BP, BPAP, BP p.l.c., the United States, state and local governments, Halliburton, and Transocean participated in Phase II of the trial. In January 2015, the Louisiana District Court issued its Phase II Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Louisiana District Court found that, for purposes of calculating the maximum possible civil penalty under the CWA, 3.19 million barrels of oil were discharged into the Gulf of Mexico. |
The penalty phase of the trial began in January 2015. Post-trial briefs are due in March and April 2015. The trial included Anadarko, BP, and the United States, and will assess findings and penalties under the CWA. In March 2014, the Louisiana District Court ruled that no evidence of Anadarko’s alleged culpability or fault could be presented during the penalty phase trial. |
The State of Alabama previously brought actions against the Company and other parties for claims arising from the Deepwater Horizon event, including claims for penalties and fines under state environmental laws, which were subsequently dismissed by the Louisiana District Court. The Louisiana District Court has selected this case as its test case for valuing the damages sought by states for claims under federal laws arising from the Deepwater Horizon event. Trial is set for November 2015 and the parties are conducting discovery. The Louisiana District Court’s previous rulings apply to Alabama’s claims, including the court’s decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies; its decision allocating fault and liability among BP and BPAP, Transocean, and Halliburton; and its orders precluding evidence of alleged culpability by Anadarko, leaving only damages to be decided. The Company, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, is fully indemnified by BP against losses arising as a result of claims for damages. |
17. Contingencies (Continued) |
|
Two separate class-action complaints were filed in June and August 2010, in the New York District Court on behalf of purported purchasers of the Company’s stock between June 12, 2009, and June 9, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of its officers. The consolidated action was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division (Texas District Court). The complaints allege causes of action arising pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company’s liability related to the Deepwater Horizon events. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs. In March 2014, the parties reached a settlement in this matter, which was approved by the Texas District Court in September 2014. The settlement was directly funded by the Company’s insurers. |
|
Remaining Liability Outlook It is possible that the Company may recognize additional Deepwater Horizon event-related liabilities for potential fines and penalties and certain other claims not covered by the indemnification provisions of the Settlement Agreement; however, the Company does not believe that any potential liability attributable to the foregoing items, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. This assessment takes into account certain qualitative factors, including the subjective and fault-based nature of CWA penalties, the Company’s indemnification by BP against certain damage claims as discussed above and BP’s creditworthiness. |
Although the Company is fully indemnified by BP against OPA damage claims, NRD claims and assessment costs, and certain other potential liabilities, the Company may be required to recognize a liability for these amounts in advance of or in connection with recognizing a receivable from BP for the related indemnity payment. In all circumstances, however, the Company expects that any additional indemnified liability that may be recognized by the Company will be subsequently recovered from BP itself or through the guarantees of BPCNA or BP p.l.c. |
The Company will continue to monitor the MDL and other legal proceedings discussed above as well as federal investigations related to the Deepwater Horizon events. The Company cannot predict the nature of additional evidence that may be discovered during the course of legal proceedings or the timing of completion of any legal proceedings. |
|
Deepwater Horizon and Tronox Derivative Claims In May 2013, an Anadarko shareholder filed a derivative action in the 215th District Court of Harris County, Texas (215th District Court) against Anadarko and certain current and former directors and officers (DWH Derivative Action). The shareholder purported to bring claims on behalf of Anadarko and alleged, among other things, that certain current and former directors and officers breached their fiduciary duty in connection with the Company’s investment in the Macondo lease. |
In addition, in April 2014, the Company’s Board of Directors received a letter from a current shareholder demanding that the Board undertake an independent investigation of certain current and former officers and directors for alleged breach of fiduciary duty related to the Company’s April 2014 settlement of the Tronox Adversary Proceeding (Tronox Derivative Demand). |
In May 2014, the parties reached an agreement to jointly resolve the DWH Derivative Action and the Tronox Derivative Demand in one settlement. In order to achieve the joint settlement, the petition in the DWH Derivative Action was amended to include the allegations asserted in the Tronox Derivative Demand. In August 2014, the 215th District Court approved the settlement. The settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
17. Contingencies (Continued) |
|
Other Litigation In December 2008, Anadarko sold its interest in the Peregrino heavy-oil field offshore Brazil. The Company is currently litigating a dispute with the Brazilian tax authorities regarding the tax rate applicable to the transaction. Currently, $128 million, the amount of tax originally in dispute, resides in a judicially controlled Brazilian bank account pending final resolution of the matter and is included in other assets on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2014. |
In July 2009, the lower judicial court ruled in favor of the Brazilian tax authorities. The Company appealed this decision to the Brazilian Regional courts, which upheld the lower court’s ruling in favor of the Brazilian tax authorities in December 2011. In April 2012, the Company filed simultaneous appeals to the Brazilian Superior Court and the Brazilian Supreme Court. The Brazilian Superior Court and the Brazilian Supreme Court have agreed to hear the case and the Company currently is awaiting the setting of initial hearing dates. In August 2013, following a determination by an administrative court in a related matter that the amount of tax in dispute was not calculated properly, the Company filed a petition requesting the withdrawal of a portion of the judicial deposit to the extent it exceeds $42 million, the amount of tax currently in dispute, and any interest on such amount. |
The Company believes that it will more likely than not prevail in Brazilian courts. Therefore, no tax liability has been recorded for Peregrino divestiture-related litigation at December 31, 2014. The Company continues to vigorously defend its position in Brazilian courts. |
|
Guarantees and Indemnifications The Company provides certain indemnifications in relation to asset dispositions. These indemnifications typically relate to disputes, litigation, or tax matters existing at the date of disposition. In 2013, as a result of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy declaration by a third party, the DOI ordered Anadarko to perform the decommissioning of a production facility and related wells, which were previously sold to the third party. During 2013, the Company accrued costs of $117 million to decommission the production facility and related wells, reported in other (income) expense, net in the Consolidated Statement of Income. During 2014, the Company recognized a $22 million increase in the estimated decommissioning costs. Anadarko completed decommissioning of the production facility in 2014 and expects to complete decommissioning of the wells in 2015. Decommissioning obligations of $114 million were included in accrued expenses on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2014. Actual costs may vary from this estimate; however, the Company does not believe that any such change will materially impact its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
|
Environmental Matters Anadarko is also subject to various environmental-remediation and reclamation obligations arising from federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets include liabilities for remediation and reclamation obligations of $126 million at December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013. The current portion of these amounts was included in accounts payable and the long-term portion of these amounts was included in other long-term liabilities—other on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company continually monitors remediation and reclamation processes and adjusts its liability for these obligations as necessary. |
The Company is one of numerous parties previously notified by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that, as a result of a prior acquisition, it is a potentially responsible party with respect to a landfill located in West Covina, California. While no agreement is in place with the DTSC, the Company recorded a $50 million restoration liability in 2013 with respect to the site, representing the current estimated obligation, which is included in the Company’s liability balance at December 31, 2014. The Company could incur additional obligations if any of the potentially responsible parties are ultimately not able to fund their allocated share of the costs or if the DTSC requires a more costly remedial approach. It is possible that the Company’s current estimate of probable loss related to this matter could change, perhaps materially, in the future. |