Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is involved in legal and regulatory proceedings, lawsuits, claims and investigations incidental to the normal conduct of business, relating to such matters as product liability, land disputes, commercial contracts, employment, antitrust, intellectual property, workers' compensation, chemical exposure, asbestos exposure, prior acquisitions and divestitures, past waste disposal practices and release of chemicals into the environment. The Company is actively defending those matters where the Company is named as a defendant. Due to the inherent subjectivity of assessments and unpredictability of outcomes of legal proceedings, the Company's litigation accruals and estimates of possible loss or range of possible loss ("Possible Loss") may not represent the ultimate loss to the Company from legal proceedings. For reasonably possible loss contingencies that may be material, the Company estimates its Possible Loss when determinable, considering that the Company could incur no loss in certain matters. Thus, the Company's exposure and ultimate losses may be higher or lower, and possibly materially so, than the Company's litigation accruals and estimates of Possible Loss. For some matters, the Company is unable, at this time, to estimate its Possible Loss that is reasonably possible of occurring. Generally, the less progress that has been made in the proceedings or the broader the range of potential results, the more difficult for the Company to estimate the Possible Loss that it is reasonably possible the Company could incur. The Company may disclose certain information related to a plaintiff's claim against the Company alleged in the plaintiff's pleadings or otherwise publicly available. While information of this type may provide insight into the potential magnitude of a matter, it does not necessarily represent the Company's estimate of reasonably possible or probable loss. Some of the Company's exposure in legal matters may be offset by applicable insurance coverage. The Company does not consider the possible availability of insurance coverage in determining the amounts of any accruals or any estimates of Possible Loss.

Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation

CNA Holdings LLC ("CNA Holdings"), the successor in interest to Hoechst Celanese Corporation ("HCC"), Celanese Americas Corporation and Celanese GmbH (collectively, the "Celanese Entities") and Hoechst, the former parent of HCC, were named as defendants for alleged antitrust violations in a consolidated proceeding by a Multi-District Litigation Panel in the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina styled In re Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1516. In June 2008, the court dismissed these actions with prejudice against all Celanese Entities in consideration of a payment by the Company.

Prior to December 31, 2008, the Company had entered into tolling arrangements with four other alleged US purchasers of polyester staple fibers manufactured and sold by the Celanese Entities. These purchasers were not included in the settlement and one such company filed suit against the Company in December 2008 (Milliken & Company v. CNA Holdings, Inc., Celanese Americas Corporation and Hoechst AG (No. 8-SV-00578 W.D.N.C.)). In September 2011, that case was dismissed with prejudice based on a stipulation and proposed order of voluntary dismissal. One of the alleged US purchasers made a demand to the Company in February 2013 but has not filed a formal claim. The Company is evaluating its options, but does not believe a Possible Loss for this matter would be material.

Commercial Actions

In June 2012, Linde Gas Singapore Pte. Ltd. ("Linde Gas"), a raw materials supplier based in Singapore, initiated arbitration proceedings in New York against the Company's subsidiary, Celanese Singapore Pte. Ltd. ("Singapore Ltd."), alleging that Singapore Ltd. had breached a certain requirements contract for carbon monoxide by temporarily idling Singapore Ltd.'s acetic acid facility in Jurong Island, Singapore. The Company filed its answer in August 2012. Linde Gas is seeking damages in the amount of $38 million for the period ended December 31, 2012, in addition to other unspecified damages. The Company believes that Linde Gas' claims lack merit and that the Company has complied with the contract terms and is vigorously defending the matter. Based on the Company's evaluation of currently available information, the Company does not believe the Possible Loss is material. The arbitral panel has bifurcated the case into a liability and damages phase. The hearing for all liability issues took place in June 2013 and a ruling from the arbitral panel is expected during the three months ending December 31, 2013, with a hearing for damages issues thereafter, if necessary.

Award Proceedings in Relation to Domination Agreement and Squeeze-Out

The Company's subsidiary, BCP Holdings GmbH ("BCP Holdings"), a German limited liability company, is a defendant in two special award proceedings initiated by minority stockholders of Celanese GmbH seeking the court's review of the amounts (i) of the fair cash compensation and of the guaranteed dividend offered in the purchaser offer under the 2004 Domination Agreement (the "Domination Agreement") and (ii) the fair cash compensation paid for the 2006 squeeze-out ("Squeeze-Out") of all remaining stockholders of Celanese GmbH.

Pursuant to a settlement agreement between BCP Holdings and certain former Celanese GmbH stockholders, if the court sets a higher value for the fair cash compensation or the guaranteed payment under the Domination Agreement or the Squeeze-Out compensation, former Celanese GmbH stockholders who ceased to be stockholders of Celanese GmbH due to the Squeeze-Out will be entitled to claim for their shares the higher of the compensation amounts determined by the court in these different proceedings related to the Domination Agreement and the Squeeze-Out. If the fair cash compensation determined by the court is higher than the Squeeze-Out compensation of €66.99, then 1,069,465 shares will be entitled to an adjustment. If the court determines the value of the fair cash compensation under the Domination Agreement to be lower than the original Squeeze-Out compensation, but determines a higher value for the Squeeze-Out compensation, 924,078 shares would be entitled to an adjustment. Payments already received by these stockholders as compensation for their shares will be offset so that persons who ceased to be stockholders of Celanese GmbH due to the Squeeze-Out are not entitled to more than the higher of the amount set in the two court proceedings.

In September 2011, the share valuation expert appointed by the court rendered an opinion. The expert opined that the fair cash compensation for these stockholders (145,387 shares) should be increased from €41.92 to €51.86. This non-binding opinion recommends a total increase in share value of €2 million for those claims under the Domination Agreement. The opinion has no effect on the Squeeze-Out proceeding because the share price recommended is lower than the price those stockholders already received in the Squeeze-Out. However, the opinion also advocates that the guaranteed dividend should be increased from €2.89 to €3.79, aggregating an increase in total guaranteed dividends of €1 million to the Squeeze-Out claimants. The Company and plaintiffs submitted written responses arguing for alternative valuations during the three months ended December 31, 2011. In March 2013, the expert issued his supplementary opinion affirming his previous views and calculations. The Company has submitted written objections regarding the calculations and the court has set a hearing for January 28, 2014. Separately, no expert has yet been appointed in the Squeeze-Out proceedings.

For those claims brought under the Domination Agreement, based on the Company's evaluation of currently available information, including the non-binding expert opinions, and the fact that the court has not yet determined the applicable valuation method, which could increase or decrease the Company's potential exposure, the Company does not believe that the Possible Loss is material.

For those remaining claims brought by the Squeeze-Out claimants, based on the Company's evaluation of currently available information, including that damages sought are unspecified, unsupported or uncertain, the matter presents meaningful legal uncertainties (including novel issues of law and the applicable valuation method), there are significant facts in dispute and the court has not yet appointed an expert, the Company cannot estimate the Possible Loss, if any, at this time.

Guarantees

The Company has agreed to guarantee or indemnify third parties for environmental and other liabilities pursuant to a variety of agreements, including asset and business divestiture agreements, leases, settlement agreements and various agreements with affiliated companies. Although many of these obligations contain monetary and/or time limitations, others do not provide such limitations.

As indemnification obligations often depend on the occurrence of unpredictable future events, the future costs associated with them cannot be determined at this time.

The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with all known matters or claims that have been brought to its attention. These known obligations include the following:


•	Demerger Obligations

In connection with the Hoechst demerger, the Company agreed to indemnify Hoechst, and its legal successors, for various liabilities under the demerger agreement, including for environmental liabilities associated with contamination arising either from environmental damage in general ("Category A") or under 19 divestiture agreements entered into by Hoechst prior to the demerger ("Category B") (Note 11).

The Company's obligation to indemnify Hoechst, and its legal successors, is capped under Category B at €250 million. If and to the extent the environmental damage should exceed €750 million in aggregate, the Company's obligation to indemnify Hoechst and its legal successors applies, but is then limited to 33.33% of the remediation cost without further limitations. Cumulative payments under the divestiture agreements as of September 30, 2013 are $63 million. Most of the divestiture agreements have become time barred and/or any notified environmental damage claims have been partially settled.

The Company has also undertaken in the demerger agreement to indemnify Hoechst and its legal successors for (i) 33.33% of any and all Category A liabilities that result from Hoechst being held as the responsible party pursuant to public law or current or future environmental law or by third parties pursuant to private or public law related to contamination and (ii) liabilities that Hoechst is required to discharge, including tax liabilities, which are associated with businesses that were included in the demerger but were not demerged due to legal restrictions on the transfers of such items. These indemnities do not provide for any monetary or time limitations. The Company has not been requested by Hoechst to make any payments in connection with this indemnification. Accordingly, the Company has not made any payments to Hoechst and its legal successors.

Based on the Company's evaluation of currently available information, including the lack of requests for indemnification, the Company cannot estimate the Possible Loss for the remaining demerger obligations, if any, in excess of amounts accrued.


•	Divestiture Obligations

The Company and its predecessor companies agreed to indemnify third-party purchasers of former businesses and assets for various pre-closing conditions, as well as for breaches of representations, warranties and covenants. Such liabilities also include environmental liability, product liability, antitrust and other liabilities. These indemnifications and guarantees represent standard contractual terms associated with typical divestiture agreements and, other than environmental liabilities, the Company does not believe that they expose the Company to any significant risk (Note 11).

The Company has divested numerous businesses, investments and facilities through agreements containing indemnifications or guarantees to the purchasers. Many of the obligations contain monetary and/or time limitations, ranging from one year to thirty years. The aggregate amount of outstanding indemnifications and guarantees provided for under these agreements is $133 million as of September 30, 2013. Other agreements do not provide for any monetary or time limitations.

Based on the Company's evaluation of currently available information, including the number of requests for indemnification or other payment received by the Company, the Company cannot estimate the Possible Loss for the remaining divestiture obligations, if any, in excess of amounts accrued.

Purchase Obligations

In the normal course of business, the Company enters into various purchase commitments for goods and services. The Company maintains a number of "take-or-pay" contracts for purchases of raw materials, utilities and other services. Certain of the contracts contain a contract termination buy-out provision that allows for the Company to exit the contracts for amounts less than the remaining take-or-pay obligations. The Company does not expect to incur any material losses under take-or-pay contractual arrangements. Additionally, the Company has other outstanding commitments representing maintenance and service agreements, energy and utility agreements, consulting contracts and software agreements. As of September 30, 2013, the Company had unconditional purchase obligations of $3.7 billion which extend through 2034.

The Company holds variable interests in entities that supply certain raw materials and services to the Company. The variable interests primarily relate to cost-plus contractual arrangements with the suppliers and recovery of capital expenditures for certain plant assets plus a rate of return on such assets. Liabilities for such supplier recoveries of capital expenditures have been recorded as capital lease obligations. The entities are not consolidated because the Company is not the primary beneficiary of the entities as it does not have the power to direct the activities of the entities that most significantly impact the entities' economic performance. The Company's maximum exposure to loss as a result of its involvement with these variable interest entities ("VIEs") as of September 30, 2013 relates primarily to early contract termination fees.

The Company's carrying value of assets and liabilities associated with its obligations to VIEs, as well as the maximum exposure to loss relating to these VIEs are as follows:



	As of September 30, 2013	As of December 31, 2012
	(In $ millions)
Property, plant and equipment, net	113	118

Trade payables	50	41
Current installments of long-term debt	8	7
Long-term debt	137	140
Total	195	188

Maximum exposure to loss	315	273

The difference between the total obligations to VIEs and the maximum exposure to loss primarily represents take-or-pay obligations for services included in the unconditional purchase obligations discussed above.