XML 42 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.2
Commitments and Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments
Unconditional Purchase Obligations
As of September 30, 2020, purchase commitments for capital expenditures were $67.8 million, all of which is obligated within the next five years, with $57.0 million obligated within the next 12 months.
As of September 30, 2020, Australian and U.S. commitments under take-or-pay arrangements totaled $1.2 billion, of which approximately $91 million is obligated within the next year. The change in commitments under take-or-pay arrangements since the year ended December 31, 2019 was largely driven by extensions to the Company’s commercial agreements for rail and port commitments, partially offset by reductions to near-term commitments related to its North Goonyella Mine. For additional information regarding the Company’s commitments under take-or-pay arrangements, refer to Note 26. “Commitments and Contingencies” to the consolidated financial statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019.
Contingencies
From time to time, the Company or its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or related to indemnities or historical operations. The Company believes it has recorded adequate reserves for these liabilities. The Company discusses its significant legal proceedings below, including ongoing proceedings and those that impacted the Company’s results of operations for the periods presented.
Litigation Relating to Continuing Operations
Securities Class Action. On September 28, 2020, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System (the Plaintiff) brought a securities lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative class for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Plaintiff alleges that the Company made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to safety practices at the Company’s North Goonyella Mine and that, after a September 28, 2018 fire at the mine, made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of the Company’s plan to restart the mine after the fire. The Plaintiff further alleges that the false or misleading statements and/or failure to disclose adverse facts caused the Company’s stock price to trade at artificially inflated levels only to fall in value after the alleged adverse facts were subsequently revealed. As a result of purchasing the Company’s stock between the asserted class period of April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, the Plaintiff and the putative class allegedly suffered economic loss and damages under federal securities laws. The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and reimbursement of expenses, including legal fees. The Company does not believe the lawsuit is meritorious and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations.
County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach. The Company was named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in three nearly identical lawsuits brought by municipalities in California on July 17, 2017. The lawsuits seek to hold a wide variety of companies that produce fossil fuels liable for the alleged impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to those fuels and seek compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, attorneys’ fees and costs, disgorgement of profits and equitable relief of abatement. The lawsuits primarily assert that the companies’ products have caused a sea level rise that is damaging the plaintiffs. The complaints specifically alleged that the defendants’ activities from 1965 to 2015 caused such damage. The Company filed a motion to enforce the Company’s Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of Debtors and Debtors in Possession as revised March 15, 2017 (the Plan) because it enjoins claims that arose before the effective date of the Plan. The motion to enforce was granted on October 24, 2017, and the Bankruptcy Court ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss their lawsuits against the Company. On November 26, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s October 24, 2017 order to the District Court. On November 28, 2017, the plaintiffs sought a stay pending appeal from the Bankruptcy Court, which was denied on December 8, 2017. On December 19, 2017, the plaintiffs moved the District Court for a stay pending appeal. The District Court denied the stay request on September 20, 2018, and the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the Eighth Circuit). On March 29, 2019, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court ruling enjoining the plaintiffs from proceeding with their lawsuits against the Company. That ruling likewise was appealed. On May 6, 2020, the Eighth Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ request for stay and affirmed the order compelling the plaintiffs to dismiss the Company. The plaintiffs filed an application with the United States Supreme Court to recall the Eighth Circuit’s mandate, which the Supreme Court denied on June 24, 2020. On July 1, 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed Peabody with prejudice from the underlying cases pending in California. In the underlying cases pending in California, on May 26, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the cases should be heard in state court rather than federal court. The plaintiffs did not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court by the October 5, 2020 deadline. The Company believes that the lawsuits are concluded as to the Company.
FTC Complaint for Preliminary Injunction. On February 26, 2020, the FTC brought a complaint against the Company and Arch in the District Court seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the Company and Arch from consummating their proposed joint venture relating to their operations in Wyoming and Colorado. On September 29, 2020, the District Court granted the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction. In light of the ruling, the Company and Arch have terminated their agreement to pursue the joint venture.
Other
At times the Company becomes a party to other disputes, including those related to contract miner performance, claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, regulatory investigations and administrative procedures in the ordinary course of business in the U.S., Australia and other countries where the Company does business. Based on current information, the Company believes that such other pending or threatened proceedings are likely to be resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.