COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Combined Divisions of Huntsman
LEGAL MATTERS
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Guarantees Substantially all of our U.S. operations and certain of their foreign subsidiary holdings fully and unconditionally guaranteed Huntsman International’s outstanding notes. Subsequent to the business separation, such operations and entities will no longer guarantee Huntsman International’s outstanding notes. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, Huntsman International and its guarantors had third-party debt outstanding of $3,746 million and $3,793 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, our U.S. operations and certain of our foreign subsidiaries had total assets, excluding intercompany amounts, of $462 million and $502 million, respectively. Legal Proceedings Antitrust Matters We were named as a defendant in consolidated class action civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that we, our co-defendants and other alleged co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of TiO₂ sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002 and the present. The other defendants named in this matter were E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont"), Kronos and National Titanium Dioxide Company, Ltd. ("Cristal") (formerly Millennium). On August 28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all U.S. customers who purchased TiO₂ directly from the defendants (the "Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003. On December 13, 2013, we and all other defendants settled the Direct Purchasers litigation and the court approved the settlement. We paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to our condensed combined financial statements. On November 22, 2013, we were named as a defendant in a civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out Litigation"). On April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against us from the other defendants sued and ordered our case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently, Kronos, another defendant, was also severed from the Minnesota case and claims against it were transferred and consolidated for trial with our case in the Southern District of Texas. On February 26, 2016, we reached an agreement to settle the Opt-Out Litigation and subsequently paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to our condensed combined financial statements. We were also named as a defendant in a class action civil antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of products made from TiO₂ (the "Indirect Purchasers") making essentially the same allegations as did the Direct Purchasers. On October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those merchants and consumers of architectural coatings containing TiO₂. On August 11, 2015, the court granted our motion to dismiss the Indirect Purchasers litigation with leave to amend the complaint. A Third Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on September 29, 2015 further limiting the class to consumers of architectural paints. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims under the laws of 15 states, consumer protection claims under the laws of nine states, and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 16 states. On November 4, 2015, we and our co-defendants filed another motion to dismiss. On June 13, 2016, the court substantially denied the motion to dismiss except as to consumer protection claims in one state. The parties have entered into a settlement, subject to court approval, for an amount immaterial to our condensed combined financial statements. On August 23, 2016, we were named as a defendant in a fourth civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by an Indirect Purchaser, Home Depot. Home Depot is an Indirect Purchaser primarily through paints it purchases from various manufacturers. We settled this matter and the court dismissed the case on May 31, 2017 for an amount immaterial to our condensed combined financial statements. These Indirect Purchasers seek injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of suit and attorneys' fees. We are not aware of any illegal conduct by us or any of our employees. 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 condensed combined 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.

NOTE 10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Guarantees

Substantially all of our U.S. operations and certain of their foreign subsidiary holdings fully and unconditionally guaranteed Huntsman International’s outstanding notes. Subsequent to the business separation, such operations and entities will no longer guarantee Huntsman International’s outstanding notes. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, Huntsman International and its guarantors had third-party debt outstanding of $3,746 million and $3,793 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, our U.S. operations and certain of our foreign subsidiaries had total assets, excluding intercompany amounts, of $462 million and $502 million, respectively.

Legal Proceedings

Antitrust Matters

We were named as a defendant in consolidated class action civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that we, our co-defendants and other alleged co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of TiO₂ sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002 and the present. The other defendants named in this matter were E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont"), Kronos and National Titanium Dioxide Company, Ltd. ("Cristal") (formerly Millennium). On August 28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all U.S. customers who purchased TiO₂ directly from the defendants (the "Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003. On December 13, 2013, we and all other defendants settled the Direct Purchasers litigation and the court approved the settlement. We paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to our condensed combined financial statements.

On November 22, 2013, we were named as a defendant in a civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out Litigation"). On April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against us from the other defendants sued and ordered our case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently, Kronos, another defendant, was also severed from the Minnesota case and claims against it were transferred and consolidated for trial with our case in the Southern District of Texas. On February 26, 2016, we reached an agreement to settle the Opt-Out Litigation and subsequently paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to our condensed combined financial statements.

We were also named as a defendant in a class action civil antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of products made from TiO₂ (the "Indirect Purchasers") making essentially the same allegations as did the Direct Purchasers. On October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those merchants and consumers of architectural coatings containing TiO₂. On August 11, 2015, the court granted our motion to dismiss the Indirect Purchasers litigation with leave to amend the complaint. A Third Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on September 29, 2015 further limiting the class to consumers of architectural paints. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims under the laws of 15 states, consumer protection claims under the laws of nine states, and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 16 states. On November 4, 2015, we and our co-defendants filed another motion to dismiss. On June 13, 2016, the court substantially denied the motion to dismiss except as to consumer protection claims in one state. The parties have entered into a settlement, subject to court approval, for an amount immaterial to our condensed combined financial statements.

On August 23, 2016, we were named as a defendant in a fourth civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by an Indirect Purchaser, Home Depot. Home Depot is an Indirect Purchaser primarily through paints it purchases from various manufacturers. We settled this matter and the court dismissed the case on May 31, 2017 for an amount immaterial to our condensed combined financial statements.

These Indirect Purchasers seek injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of suit and attorneys' fees. We are not aware of any illegal conduct by us or any of our employees.

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 condensed combined 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.