Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 13. Commitments and Contingencies We are from time to time party to litigation, legal proceedings and tax examinations arising from our operations. Most of these matters involve allegations of damages against us relating to employment matters, personal injury and commercial or contractual disputes. We record estimates for claims and proceedings that constitute a present obligation when it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation and a reliable estimate of such obligation can be made. While it is not possible to predict the outcome of any of these matters, based on our assessment of the facts and circumstances, we do not believe any of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our balance sheet, results of operations or cash flows. However, actual outcomes may differ from those expected and could have a material effect on our balance sheet, results of operations or cash flows in a future period. On April 14, 2021, MP2 Energy LLC (“MP2”) filed a lawsuit against Pactiv LLC (“Pactiv”), one of our indirect subsidiaries, in state court in Montgomery County, Texas. In this lawsuit, MP2 seeks to collect approximately $40 million from Pactiv that MP2 claims that Pactiv owes MP2 under an energy management services agreement (“EMSA”). Under the EMSA, Pactiv agreed, among other things, to sell MP2 a certain contract quantity of energy at a specified price. If this contract quantity of energy became unavailable for Pactiv to sell to MP2, the EMSA granted MP2 the right to contract for the purchase of the shortfall in the contract quantity, and to charge Pactiv for the cost incurred by MP2 in contracting for that shortfall, “unless due to an event of Force Majeure.” On February 15, 2021, Pactiv notified MP2 that Pactiv was excused by Force Majeure under the EMSA to the extent that the contract quantity of energy was not available for Pactiv to sell to MP2 because of the winter weather emergency caused by Winter Storm Uri. Even though MP2 does not dispute that Winter Storm Uri constituted an event of Force Majeure under the EMSA, MP2 nevertheless seeks to hold Pactiv responsible in this lawsuit for $40 million in costs that MP2 claims it incurred in contracting for a shortfall in Pactiv’s contract quantity of energy during the event of Force Majeure. Pactiv disputes any liability to MP2 and maintains that Pactiv acted reasonably at all times and that the event of Force Majeure excused any obligation Pactiv had to supply the contract quantity under the EMSA or to reimburse MP2 for its cost in contracting for any shortfall in the contract quantity. Pactiv believes that MP2’s claim is without merit and that Pactiv has strong defenses against MP2’s claim, including, but not limited to, Force Majeure. Pactiv intends to vigorously defend itself against MP2’s claim in this lawsuit. Although we are confident of Pactiv’s legal position in this matter and do not consider it probable that this matter will result in a material loss, we can offer no assurance that Pactiv will in fact obtain a favorable outcome. As part of the agreements for the sale of various businesses, we have provided certain warranties and indemnities to the respective purchasers as set out in the respective sale agreements. These warranties and indemnities are subject to various terms and conditions affecting the duration and total amount of the indemnities. As of March 31, 2021, we are not aware of any material claims under these agreements that would give rise to an additional liability. However, if such claims arise in the future, they could have a material effect on our balance sheet, results of operations and cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 13. Commitments and Contingencies

We are from time to time party to litigation, legal proceedings and tax examinations arising from our operations. Most of these matters involve allegations of damages against us relating to employment matters, personal injury and commercial or contractual disputes. We record estimates for claims and proceedings that constitute a present obligation when it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation and a reliable estimate of such obligation can be made. While it is not possible to predict the outcome of any of these matters, based on our assessment of the facts and circumstances, we do not believe any of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our balance sheet, results of operations or cash flows. However, actual outcomes may differ from those expected and could have a material effect on our balance sheet, results of operations or cash flows in a future period.

On April 14, 2021, MP2 Energy LLC (“MP2”) filed a lawsuit against Pactiv LLC (“Pactiv”), one of our indirect subsidiaries, in state court in Montgomery County, Texas. In this lawsuit, MP2 seeks to collect approximately $40 million from Pactiv that MP2 claims that Pactiv owes MP2 under an energy management services agreement (“EMSA”). Under the EMSA, Pactiv agreed, among other things, to sell MP2 a certain contract quantity of energy at a specified price. If this contract quantity of energy became unavailable for Pactiv to sell to MP2, the EMSA granted MP2 the right to contract for the purchase of the shortfall in the contract quantity, and to charge Pactiv for the cost incurred by MP2 in contracting for that shortfall, “unless due to an event of Force Majeure.” On February 15, 2021, Pactiv notified MP2 that Pactiv was excused by Force Majeure under the EMSA to the extent that the contract quantity of energy was not available for Pactiv to sell to MP2 because of the winter weather emergency caused by Winter Storm Uri. Even though MP2 does not dispute that Winter Storm Uri constituted an event of Force Majeure under the EMSA, MP2 nevertheless seeks to hold Pactiv responsible in this lawsuit for $40 million in costs that MP2 claims it incurred in contracting for a shortfall in Pactiv’s contract quantity of energy during the event of Force Majeure. Pactiv disputes any liability to MP2 and maintains that Pactiv acted reasonably at all times and that the event of Force Majeure excused any obligation Pactiv had to supply the contract quantity under the EMSA or to reimburse MP2 for its cost in contracting for any shortfall in the contract quantity. Pactiv believes that MP2’s claim is without merit and that Pactiv has strong defenses against MP2’s claim, including, but not limited to, Force Majeure. Pactiv intends to vigorously defend itself against MP2’s claim in this lawsuit. Although we are confident of Pactiv’s legal position in this matter and do not consider it probable that this matter will result in a material loss, we can offer no assurance that Pactiv will in fact obtain a favorable outcome.

As part of the agreements for the sale of various businesses, we have provided certain warranties and indemnities to the respective purchasers as set out in the respective sale agreements. These warranties and indemnities are subject to various terms and conditions affecting the duration and total amount of the indemnities. As of March 31, 2021, we are not aware of any material claims under these agreements that would give rise to an additional liability. However, if such claims arise in the future, they could have a material effect on our balance sheet, results of operations and cash flows.