Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 23. Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments

We have various purchase commitments extending through 2029 for materials, supplies and services entered into in the ordinary course of business. Included in the purchase commitments table below are contracts which require minimum volume purchases that extend beyond one year or are renewable annually and have been renewed for 2020. Certain contracts allow for changes in minimum required purchase volumes in the event of a temporary or permanent shutdown of a facility. To the extent the contract requires a minimum notice period; such notice period has been included in the table below. The contractual purchase prices for substantially all of these contracts are variable based upon market prices, subject to annual negotiations. We have estimated our contractual obligations by using the terms of our current pricing for each contract. We also have a limited number of contracts which require a minimum payment even if no volume is purchased. We believe that all of our purchase obligations will be utilized in our normal operations. For the years ended December 31, 2019, December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, we made minimum payments under such take or pay contracts without taking the product of $1 million, nil and $2 million, respectively. Total purchase commitments as of December 31, 2019 were as follows:


Year ended December 31,	Amount
2020	$	100
2021	98
2022	85
2023	11
2024	11
Thereafter	38

Legal Proceedings

Shareholder Litigation

On February 8, 2019 we, certain of our executive officers, Huntsman and certain banks who acted as underwriters in connection with our IPO and secondary offering were named as defendants in a proposed class action civil suit filed in the District Court for the State of Texas, Dallas County (the "Dallas District Court"), by an alleged purchaser of our ordinary shares in connection with our IPO on August 3, 2017 and our secondary offering on November 30, 2017. The plaintiff, Macomb County Employees’ Retirement System, alleges that inaccurate and misleading statements were made regarding the impact to our operations, and prospects for restoration thereof, resulting from the fire that occurred at our Pori, Finland manufacturing facility, among other allegations. Additional complaints making substantially the same allegations were filed in the Dallas District Court by the Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis on March 4, 2019 and by Oscar Gonzalez on March 13, 2019, with the third case naming two of our directors as additional defendants. A fourth case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust on July 31, 2019, making substantially the same allegations, adding claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act,

and naming all of our directors as additional defendants. A fifth case, filed by Bonnie Yoon Bishop in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on October 7, 2019. A sixth case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas by the Cambria County Employees Retirement System on September 13, 2019, making substantially the same allegations as those made by the plaintiff in the case pending in the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek to determine that the proceedings should be certified as class actions and to obtain alleged compensatory damages, costs, rescission and equitable relief.

The cases filed in the Dallas District Court have been consolidated into a single action, In re Venator Materials PLC Securities Litigation. On October 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order transferring the case brought by the city of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where it was consolidated into a single action with the case brought by the Cambria County Employees' Retirement Trust and is now known as In re: Venator Materials PLC Securities Litigation. On January 17, 2020, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated class action complaint.

On May 8, 2019, we filed a "special appearance" in the Dallas District Court action contesting the court’s jurisdiction over the Company and a motion to transfer venue to Montgomery County, Texas and on June 7, 2019 we and certain defendants filed motions to dismiss. On July 9, 2019, a hearing was held on certain of these motions, which were subsequently denied. On October 3, 2019, a hearing was held on our motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which was subsequently denied. On October 22, 2019, we and other defendants filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas seeking relief from the Dallas District Court’s denial of defendants’ Rule 91a motions to dismiss. On November 22, 2019, we also filed a notice of appeal regarding the denial of our motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. On January 21, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed the Dallas District Court’s order that denied the special appearances of Venator and certain other defendants, and rendered judgment dismissing the claims against Venator and those other defendants for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals also remanded the case for the Dallas District Court to enter an order transferring the claims against Huntsman to the Montgomery County District Court.

We may be required to indemnify our executive officers and directors, Huntsman, and the banks who acted as underwriters in our IPO and secondary offerings, for losses incurred by them in connection with these matters pursuant to our agreements with such parties. Because of the early stage of this litigation, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss and we have not accrued for a loss contingency with regard to these matters.

Tronox Litigation

On April 26, 2019, we acquired intangible assets related to the European paper laminates product line from Tronox. A separate agreement with Tronox entered into on July 14, 2018 requires that Tronox promptly pay us a "break fee" of $75 million upon the consummation of Tronox’s merger with Cristal once the sale of the European paper laminates business to us was consummated, if the sale of Cristal’s Ashtabula manufacturing complex to us was not completed. The deadline for such payment was May 13, 2019. On April 26, 2019, Tronox publicly stated that it believes it is not obligated to pay the break fee.

On May 14, 2019, we commenced a lawsuit in the Delaware Superior Court against Tronox arising from Tronox's breach of its obligation to pay the break fee. We are seeking a judgment for $75 million, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. On June 17, 2019, Tronox filed an answer denying that it is obligated to pay the break fee and asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims of approximately $400 million, alleging that we failed to negotiate the purchase of the Ashtabula complex in good faith. Discovery is ongoing in this matter. Because of the early stage of this litigation, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible gain, loss or range of gain or loss and we have not made any accrual with regard to this matter.

Neste Engineering Services Matter

We are party to an arbitration proceeding initiated by Neste Engineering Services Oy ("NES") on December 19, 2018 for payment of invoices allegedly due of approximately €14 million in connection with the delivery of services by NES to the Company in respect of the Pori site rebuild project. We are contesting the validity of these invoices and filed counterclaims against NES on March 8, 2019. The timetable for arbitration has been provisionally set with a hearing date to occur in early fourth quarter 2021. On July 2, 2019, NES separately instigated a lawsuit in Finland for €1.6 million of unpaid invoices. We are

contesting the Finnish lawsuit and filed our defense on October 31, 2019. A hearing is anticipated in the fourth quarter of 2020. We are fully accrued for these invoices and they are reflected in our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2019.

Calais Pipeline Matter

The Region Hauts-de-France (the "Region") has issued two duplicate title perception demands against us requiring repayment of €12 million. This sum was previously paid to us by the Region under a settlement agreement, pursuant to which we were required to move an effluent pipeline at our Calais site. We filed claims with the Administrative Court in Lille, France on February 14, 2018 and April 12, 2018, requesting orders that the demands be set aside, which suspended enforcement of the demands. On July 12, 2018, the court set aside the first demand. The second demand remains suspended, but in dispute. The parties have lodged various arguments and responses regarding the second demand with the court. The court has set a hearing date on the matter for March 17, 2020. We do not believe a loss is probable and have not made an accrual with respect to this matter.

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 consolidated and 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.