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, trade compliance, 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.

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. The arbitral panel bifurcated the case into a liability and damages phase. In December 2013, the arbitral panel ruled that Singapore Ltd. was not required to purchase minimum quantities under the express terms of the contract but, under the circumstances in 2012, had breached its implied duty of good faith. Both parties have filed opening briefs in the damages phase. Linde Gas was initially seeking $38 million in damages. It is now seeking damages of $68 million, of which the incremental amount relates to operations in 2012 and 2013 that the Company contends were not part of the liability phase of the arbitration, together with injunctive relief. A hearing on damages was held in May 2014 and a decision is expected in 2014. Based on the Company's evaluation of currently available information, the Company does not believe any Possible Loss, including any Possible Loss in excess of reserves, would have a significant adverse effect on the financial position of the Company, but could have a significant adverse effect on the results of operations or cash flows in any given period. The Company continues to vigorously defend the matter.

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.

In September 2011, the share valuation expert appointed by the court in connection with the Domination Agreement 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, thereby increasing the share value by a total of €2 million (including interest) and recommended that the amount of the guaranteed dividend be increased from €2.89 to €3.79, which added €1 million to the Domination Agreement claims. In March 2013, the expert issued a supplementary opinion affirming his previous views and calculations. On January 28, 2014, the court ruled and largely adopted the expert's valuation methodology; however, it raised the cash compensation from €41.92 to €49.43 and the guaranteed dividend from €2.89 to €3.61, which represent lesser amounts than those provided by the expert. BCP Holdings and certain plaintiffs have filed notices of appeal. For those claims brought under the Domination Agreement, based on the court's ruling, the Company does not believe that the Possible Loss, including any Possible Loss in excess of reserves, is material.

The court’s ruling in the Domination Agreement case on the share price has no effect on cash compensation in the Squeeze-Out proceeding because the amount set by the court is lower than the price those stockholders already received in the Squeeze-Out. After a preliminary hearing in the Squeeze-Out proceeding, the Frankfurt District Court rendered a judgment on May 27, 2014 in favor of the Company finding that the former minority stockholders were not entitled to an increase of the Squeeze-Out cash compensation. The plaintiffs may appeal.

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 12).

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 June 30, 2014 are $66 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 12).

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, which extend through 2037. The aggregate amount of outstanding indemnifications and guarantees provided for under these agreements is $133 million as of June 30, 2014. 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 June 30, 2014, the Company had unconditional purchase obligations of $3.4 billion, which extend through 2036.