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 seventeen-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 September 30, 2011, we had an accrued liability of $13 million relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable of $13 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 September 30, 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 $442,000 and $200,000 during the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. As of September 30, 2011, we had an accrual of $458,000 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 September 30, 2011.

Antitrust Matters

        We have been 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 have been 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 have been consolidated in the Kansas court for the purposes of discovery and other pretrial matters. Discovery in the direct action cases is ongoing and we do not anticipate a trial of the direct action cases until 2013.

        On May 26, 2011, we entered into a settlement agreement with the class plaintiffs. Although we vigorously deny any wrongdoing alleged in the litigation, we determined to enter into the settlement to avoid the substantial burdens and uncertainties inherent in complex business litigation.

        Under the settlement agreement, we paid $11 million into an escrow fund for the benefit of the class on June 27, 2011 after the court preliminarily approved the settlement. We will pay an additional $11 million in 2012 and a third $11 million payment in 2013. In exchange for these payments, we have received from the class a release and discharge of all claims against us, as described in the settlement agreement. Following a fairness hearing held September 27, 2011, the settlement was approved by the court and we were dismissed from the class lawsuit.

        We fully accrued for the class settlement in prior quarters. The settlement does not resolve the direct action cases nor the other pending antitrust litigation described below.

        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 International Risk Insurance Company ("IRIC"), our captive insurer, and certain reinsurers (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.

        As a result of this settlement, we recognized a gain of $110 million in discontinued operations during the second quarter of 2010, the proceeds of which were used to repay secured debt in accordance with relevant provisions of the agreements governing our senior secured credit facilities. Of the $110 million payment, $34 million was reflected within the statement of cash flows as cash flows from investing activities and the remaining $76 million was reflected as cash flows from operating activities.

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 adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.