19. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

PURCHASE COMMITMENTS

        We have various purchase commitments extending through 2023 for materials, supplies and services entered into in the ordinary course of business. Included in the purchase commitments table below are contracts which require minimum volume purchases that extend beyond one year or are renewable annually and have been renewed for 2012. Certain contracts allow for changes in minimum required purchase volumes in the event of a temporary or permanent shutdown of a facility. To the extent the contract requires a minimum notice period, such notice period has been included in the table below. The contractual purchase prices for substantially all of these contracts are variable based upon market prices, subject to annual negotiations. We have estimated our contractual obligations by using the terms of our 2011 pricing for each contract. We also have a limited number of contracts which require a minimum payment even if no volume is purchased. We believe that all of our purchase obligations will be utilized in our normal operations. During 2011, 2010 and 2009, we made minimum payments under such take or pay contracts without taking the product of nil, nil and $6 million, respectively.

        Total purchase commitments as of December 31, 2011 are as follows (dollars in millions):

OPERATING LEASES

        We lease certain railcars, aircraft, equipment and facilities under long-term lease agreements. The total expense recorded under operating lease agreements in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations is approximately $83 million, $62 million and $56 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, net of sublease rentals of approximately $4 million for each of 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

        Future minimum lease payments under operating leases as of December 31, 2011 are as follows (dollars in millions):

        Future minimum lease payments have not been reduced by minimum sublease rentals of $28 million due in the future under noncancelable subleases.

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 December 31, 2011, 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 December 31, 2011.

        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 $584,000 and $201,000 during the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. As of December 31, 2011, we had an accrual of $460,000 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 December 31, 2011.

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 Polyol 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. The class certification hearing is scheduled for April 2, 2012.

        A purported class action case filed February 15, 2002 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 16, 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.

Port Arthur Plant Fire Insurance Litigation Settlement

        On April 29, 2006, our former Port Arthur, Texas olefins manufacturing plant (which we sold to Flint Hills Resources in November 2007) experienced a major fire. The plant was covered by property damage and business interruption insurance through IRIC, our captive insurer, and the Reinsurers. The property damage and business interruption insurance was subject to a combined deductible of $60 million. We, together with IRIC, asserted claims to the Reinsurers related to losses occurring as a result of this fire. On August 31, 2007, the Reinsurers brought an action against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The action sought to compel us to arbitrate with the Reinsurers to resolve disputes related to our claims or, in the alternative, to declare judgment in favor of the Reinsurers. Pursuant to a December 29, 2008 agreement, we participated with the Reinsurers in binding arbitration. We paid our deductible on the claim of $60 million and were paid $365 million by the Reinsurers prior to the commencement of binding arbitration. On May 14, 2010, we entered into a settlement agreement with the Reinsurers, including those Reinsurers that did not participate in the arbitration proceedings that resolved the remainder of our insurance claim for a total amount of $110 million. The Reinsurers completed the payment of this amount on June 15, 2010. For more information, see "Note 25. Discontinued Operations-U.S. Base Chemical Business" to our consolidated financial statements.

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 approximately 150 million Euros relating to this matter and believes that we may be responsible for all or a portion of these claims. We are investigating this matter and based on the facts currently available to us, we believe that we are insured for any payments we may ultimately make in excess of $10 million. However, no assurance can be given regarding our ultimate liability or costs to us. We have made no accrual with respect to this matter.

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 prospectus, 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.