13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

LEGAL MATTERS

Asbestos Litigation

        We have been named as a premises defendant in a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by nonemployees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility. In the past, these cases typically have involved multiple plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making claims against which defendants, where or how the alleged injuries occurred or what injuries each plaintiff claimed. These facts, which would be central to any estimate of probable loss, generally have been learned only through discovery.

        Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to our ownership of the relevant premises, the prior owners generally have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to indemnify us against, asbestos exposure claims. This indemnification is not subject to any time or dollar amount limitations. Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, we tender it to the prior owner. Rarely do the complaints in these cases state the amount of damages being sought. The prior owner accepts responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the cases and payment of any amounts due to the claimants. In our eighteen-year experience with tendering these cases, we have not made any payment with respect to any tendered asbestos cases. We believe that the prior owners have the intention and ability to continue to honor their indemnity obligations, although we cannot assure you that they will continue to do so or that we will not be liable for these cases if they do not.

        The following table presents for the periods indicated certain information about cases for which service has been received that we have tendered to the prior owner, all of which have been accepted.

        We have never made any payments with respect to these cases. As of June 30, 2012, we had an accrued liability of $10 million relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable of $10 million relating to our indemnity protection with respect to these cases. We cannot assure you that our liability will not exceed our accruals or that our liability associated with these cases would not be material to our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and such claims could be material. However, because we are not able to estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of June 30, 2012.

        Certain cases in which we are a premises defendant are not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. The following table presents for the periods indicated certain information about these cases. Cases include all cases for which service has been received by us. Certain prior cases that were filed in error against us have been dismissed.

        We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that are not subject to indemnification of $82,000 and $342,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. As of June 30, 2012, we had an accrual of $225,000 relating to these cases. We cannot assure you that our liability will not exceed our accruals or that our liability associated with these cases would not be material to our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and such claims could be material. However, because we are not able to estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of June 30, 2012.

Antitrust Matters

        We were named as a defendant in civil class action antitrust suits alleging that between 1999 and 2004 we conspired with Bayer, BASF, Dow and Lyondell to fix the prices of MDI, TDI, polyether polyols, and related systems ("polyether polyol products") sold in the U.S. in violation of the federal Sherman Act. These cases are consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols" cases in multidistrict litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

        In addition, we and the other Polyether Polyols defendants were named as defendants in three civil antitrust suits brought by certain direct purchasers of polyether polyol products that opted out of the class certified in the Kansas multidistrict litigation. The relevant time frame for these cases is 1994 to 2004 and they are referred to as the "direct action cases." The class action and the direct action cases were consolidated in the Kansas court for the purposes of discovery and other pretrial matters.

        In the second quarter of 2011, we settled the class action and were dismissed as a defendant. On December 29, 2011, we entered into a settlement agreement with the direct action plaintiffs for an amount immaterial to our financial statements and were dismissed from those cases on December 30, 2011.

        Two similar civil antitrust class action cases were filed May 5 and 17, 2006 in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Canada and Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Quebec, on behalf of purported classes of Canadian direct and indirect purchasers of MDI, TDI and polyether polyols. On April 11, 2012, we reached agreement to resolve these cases for an amount immaterial to our condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited). The Canadian settlement is subject to court approval.

        A purported class action case filed February 15, 2005 by purchasers in California of products containing rubber and urethane chemicals and pending in Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco is stayed pending resolution of the Kansas multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs in this matter make similar claims against the defendants as the class plaintiffs in the Kansas multidistrict litigation.

        We have been named as a defendant in two purported class action civil antitrust suits alleging that we and our co-defendants and other co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002 and the present. The cases were filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and a consolidated complaint was filed on April 12, 2010. The other defendants named in this matter are E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Kronos Worldwide Inc., Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a Cristal). A class certification hearing is scheduled for August 13, 2012 and trial is set to begin September 9, 2013. Discovery is ongoing.

        In all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against us, the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive relief, treble damages, costs of suit and attorneys fees. We are not aware of any illegal conduct by us or any of our employees. Nevertheless, we have incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to us. As alleged damages in these cases have not been specified, and because of the overall complexity of these cases, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss with respect to these claims.

Product Delivery Claim

        We have been notified by a customer of potential claims related to our allegedly delivering a different product from that which it had ordered. Our customer claims that it was unaware that the different product had been delivered until after it had been used to manufacture materials which were subsequently sold. The customer has indicated that it has been notified of claims of up to an aggregate of €153 million (approximately $191 million) relating to this matter and believes that we may be responsible for all or a portion of these potential claims. We are investigating this matter and based on the facts currently available to us, we believe that we are insured for any liability we may ultimately have in excess of $10 million. However, no assurance can be given regarding our ultimate liability or costs to us. We believe the range of possible loss to our Company in this matter to be between €0 and €153 million and have made no accrual with respect to this matter.

Indemnification Matter

        On July 3, 2012, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (the "Banks") demanded that we indemnify them for claims brought by certain MatlinPatterson entities that were formerly our shareholders (the "Plaintiffs") in litigation filed June 19, 2012 in the 9th District Court in Montgomery County, Texas. The Banks assert that they are entitled to indemnification pursuant to the Agreement of Compromise and Settlement between the Banks and our Company, dated June 22, 2009, wherein the Banks and our Company settled claims that we brought relating to the failed merger with Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. ("Hexion"). Plaintiffs claim that the Banks knowingly made materially false representations about the nature of the financing for the acquisition of our Company by Hexion and that they suffered substantial losses to their 19 million shares of our common stock as a result of the Banks' misrepresentations. Plaintiffs are asserting statutory fraud, common law fraud and aiding and abetting statutory fraud and are seeking actual damages, exemplary damages, costs and attorney's fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. We have denied the Banks' demand and continue to monitor the litigation. At this time, we are unable to estimate the amount or range of possible losses with respect to these claims.

Other Proceedings

        We are a party to various other proceedings instituted by private plaintiffs, governmental authorities and others arising under provisions of applicable laws, including various environmental, products liability and other laws. Except as otherwise disclosed in this report, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these matters will have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.