Commitments and Contingencies | Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Shareholder Litigation On February 8, 2019 we, certain of our executive officers, Huntsman and certain banks who acted as underwriters in connection with our IPO and secondary offering were named as defendants in a proposed class action civil suit filed in the District Court for the State of Texas, Dallas County (the "Dallas District Court"), by an alleged purchaser of our ordinary shares in connection with our IPO on August 3, 2017 and our secondary offering on November 30, 2017. The plaintiff, Macomb County Employees’ Retirement System, alleges that inaccurate and misleading statements were made regarding the impact to our operations, and prospects for restoration thereof, resulting from the fire that occurred at our Pori, Finland manufacturing facility, among other allegations. Additional complaints making substantially the same allegations were filed in the Dallas District Court by the Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis on March 4, 2019 and by Oscar Gonzalez on March 13, 2019, with the third case naming two of our directors as additional defendants. The cases filed in the Dallas District Court were consolidated into a single action, In re Venator Materials PLC Securities Litigation . On May 8, 2019, we filed a "special appearance" in the Dallas District Court action contesting the court’s jurisdiction over the Company and a motion to transfer venue to Montgomery County, Texas and on June 7, 2019 we and certain defendants filed motions to dismiss. On July 9, 2019, a hearing was held on certain of these motions, which were subsequently denied. On January 21, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed the Dallas District Court’s order that denied the special appearances of Venator and certain other defendants, and rendered judgment dismissing the claims against Venator and certain other defendants for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals also remanded the case for the Dallas District Court to enter an order transferring the claims against Huntsman to the Montgomery County District Court. On March 19, 2020, plaintiffs from the Dallas District Court case filed suit in New York State Court (New York County) against Venator and the other defendants dismissed from the Dallas District Court case, making substantially the same allegations as were filed in the Dallas District Court. An additional case was filed on July 31, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, making substantially the same allegations, adding claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and naming all of our directors as additional defendants. A case also was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas by the Cambria County Employees Retirement System on September 13, 2019, making substantially the same allegations as those made by the plaintiff in the case pending in the Southern District of New York. On October 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order transferring the case brought by the city of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where it was consolidated into a single action with the case brought by the Cambria County Employees' Retirement Trust and is now known as In re: Venator Materials PLC Securities Litigation . On January 17, 2020, plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action filed a consolidated class action complaint. On February 18, 2020, all defendants joined in a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which plaintiffs have opposed, and for which oral argument has been scheduled for May 14, 2020. The plaintiffs in these cases seek to determine that the proceedings should be certified as class actions and to obtain alleged compensatory damages, costs, rescission and equitable relief. We may be required to indemnify our executive officers and directors, Huntsman, and the banks who acted as underwriters in our IPO and secondary offerings, for losses incurred by them in connection with these matters pursuant to our agreements with such parties. Because of the early stage of this litigation, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss and we have not accrued for a loss contingency with regard to these matters. Tronox Litigation On April 26, 2019, we acquired intangible assets related to the European paper laminates product line from Tronox. A separate agreement with Tronox entered into on July 14, 2018 requires that Tronox promptly pay us a “break fee” of $75 million upon the consummation of Tronox’s merger with The National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (“Cristal”) once the sale of the European paper laminates business to us was consummated, if the sale of Cristal’s Ashtabula manufacturing complex to us was not completed. The deadline for such payment was May 13, 2019. On April 26, 2019, Tronox publicly stated that it believes it is not obligated to pay the break fee. On May 14, 2019, we commenced a lawsuit in the Delaware Superior Court against Tronox arising from Tronox's breach of its obligation to pay the break fee. We are seeking a judgment for $75 million, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. On June 17, 2019, Tronox filed an answer denying that it is obligated to pay the break fee and asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims of approximately $400 million, alleging that we failed to negotiate the purchase of the Ashtabula complex in good faith. Discovery is ongoing in this matter. Because of the early stage of this litigation, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible gain, loss or range of gain or loss and we have not made any accrual with regard to this matter. Neste Engineering Services Matter We are party to an arbitration proceeding initiated by Neste Engineering Services Oy (“NES”) on December 19, 2018 for payment of invoices allegedly due of approximately €14 million in connection with the delivery of services by NES to the Company in respect of the Pori site rebuild project. We are contesting the validity of these invoices and filed counterclaims against NES on March 8, 2019. In the arbitration proceeding, our defense and counterclaim were filed on April 17, 2020. On July 2, 2019, NES separately instigated a lawsuit in Finland for €1.6 million of unpaid invoices, which we are contesting. We are fully accrued for these invoices and they are reflected in our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2020. Calais Pipeline Matter The Region Hauts-de-France (the “Region”) has issued two duplicate title perception demands against us requiring repayment of €12 million. This sum was previously paid to us by the Region under a settlement agreement, pursuant to which we were required to move an effluent pipeline at our Calais site. We filed claims with the Administrative Court in Lille, France on February 14, 2018 and April 12, 2018, requesting orders that the demands be set aside, which suspended enforcement of the demands. On July 12, 2018, the court set aside the first demand. The second demand remains suspended, but in dispute. The parties have lodged various arguments and responses regarding the second demand with the court. The court hearing for this matter has been postponed due to court closures in France resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Gasum Arbitration We entered into a natural gas supply agreement with Skangass Oy (now Gasum LNG Oy) in 2015 to supply natural gas to our Pori, Finland manufacturing facility. The initial fixed term of the agreement was ten years. We are entitled to terminate the agreement upon closure of the facility by giving 12 months’ notice of the closure. Upon such termination, a compensation fee would be payable to Gasum. The agreement requires us to purchase a minimum annual quantity, subject to a mechanism for making up shortfalls. The minimum annual quantity can be reduced (even to zero) in the event of a “Force Majeure Event". We declared that the fire at our Pori facility in January 2017 was a Force Majeure Event under the agreement, reducing the minimum annual quantity to the actual quantity purchased. Gasum alleges that this Force Majeure Event subsequently ceased to apply, and that we were thereafter again obliged to purchase the original minimum annual quantity. Gasum continues to supply natural gas to the Pori facility. On April 17, 2020, Gasum filed arbitration proceedings seeking declaratory relief to require us to take or pay the original minimum annual quantities of natural gas. In their request, Gasum estimated that the monetary value of declaratory relief to be approximately €27 million should we close the Pori facility by the end of 2022. Because of the early stage of this proceeding, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss and we have not accrued for a loss contingency with regard 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 these unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, 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. |