Commitments and Contingencies

Minimum rental commitments under noncancellable operating leases, primarily for office and warehouse facilities, are $178 in 2017, $160 in 2018, $143 in 2019, $130 in 2020, $104 in 2021 and $145 thereafter. Rental expense amounted to $204 in 2016, $214 in 2015 and $234 in 2014. Capital leases included in fixed assets, contingent rentals and sublease income are not significant. The Company has various contractual commitments to purchase raw, packaging and other materials totaling approximately $820 at December 31, 2016.

As a global company serving consumers in more than 200 countries and territories, the Company is routinely subject to a wide variety of legal proceedings. These include disputes relating to intellectual property, contracts, product liability, marketing, advertising, foreign exchange controls, antitrust and trade regulation, as well as labor and employment, privacy, environmental and tax matters, and consumer class actions. Management proactively reviews and monitors the Company’s exposure to, and the impact of, environmental matters. The Company is party to various environmental matters and, as such, may be responsible for all or a portion of the cleanup, restoration and post-closure monitoring of several sites.

The Company establishes accruals for loss contingencies when it has determined that a loss is probable and that the amount of loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. Any such accruals are adjusted thereafter as appropriate to reflect changes in circumstances.

The Company also determines estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses in excess of related accrued liabilities, if any, when it has determined that a loss is reasonably possible and it is able to determine such estimates. For those matters disclosed below, the Company currently estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of any accrued liabilities is $0 to approximately $225 (based on current exchange rates). The estimates included in this amount are based on the Company’s analysis of currently available information and, as new information is obtained, these estimates may change. Due to the inherent subjectivity of the assessments and the unpredictability of outcomes of legal proceedings, any amounts accrued or included in this aggregate amount may not represent the ultimate loss to the Company. Thus, the Company’s exposure and ultimate losses may be higher or lower, and possibly significantly so, than the amounts accrued or the range disclosed above.

Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of loss contingencies arising from the matters discussed herein will have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or its ongoing results of operations or cash flows. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties noted above, an adverse outcome in one or more matters could be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows for any particular quarter or year.

Brazilian Matters

There are certain tax and civil proceedings outstanding, as described below, related to the Company’s 1995 acquisition of the Kolynos oral care business from Wyeth (the “Seller”).

The Brazilian internal revenue authority has disallowed interest deductions and foreign exchange losses taken by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary for certain years in connection with the financing of the Kolynos acquisition. The tax assessments with interest, at the current exchange rate, are approximately $143. This amount includes additional assessments received from the Brazilian internal revenue authority in April 2016 relating to net operating loss carryforwards used by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary to offset taxable income that had also been deducted from the authority’s original assessments. The Company has been disputing the disallowances by appealing the assessments since October 2001. Numerous appeals are currently pending at the administrative level. In the event the Company is ultimately unsuccessful in its administrative appeals, further appeals are available within the Brazilian federal courts.

In September 2015, the Company lost one of its appeals at the administrative level, and has filed a lawsuit in Brazilian federal court. In February 2017, the Company lost an additional administrative appeal, and plans to file a similar federal court action. Although there can be no assurances, management believes, based on the opinion of its Brazilian legal counsel, that the disallowances are without merit and that the Company should ultimately prevail. The Company is challenging these assessments vigorously.

In July 2002, the Brazilian Federal Public Attorney filed a civil action against the federal government of Brazil, Laboratorios Wyeth-Whitehall Ltda. (the Brazilian subsidiary of the Seller) and the Company, as represented by its Brazilian subsidiary, in the 6th. Lower Federal Court in the City of São Paulo, seeking to annul an April 2000 decision by the Brazilian Board of Tax Appeals that found in favor of the Seller’s Brazilian subsidiary on the issue of whether it had incurred taxable capital gains as a result of the divestiture of Kolynos. The action seeks to make the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary jointly and severally liable for any tax due from the Seller’s Brazilian subsidiary. The case has been pending since 2002, and the Lower Federal Court has not issued a decision. Although there can be no assurances, management believes, based on the opinion of its Brazilian legal counsel, that the Company should ultimately prevail in this action. The Company is challenging this action vigorously.

In December 2005, the Brazilian internal revenue authority issued to the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary a tax assessment with interest and penalties of approximately $59, at the current exchange rate, based on a claim that certain purchases of U.S. Treasury bills by the subsidiary and their subsequent disposition during the period 2000 to 2001 were subject to a tax on foreign exchange transactions. The Company had been disputing the assessment within the internal revenue authority’s administrative appeals process. However, in November 2015, the Superior Chamber of Administrative Tax Appeals denied the Company’s final administrative appeal and the Company has filed a lawsuit in Brazilian federal court. In the event the Company is unsuccessful in this filing, further appeals are available within the Brazilian federal courts. Although there can be no assurances, management believes, based on the opinion of its Brazilian legal counsel, that the tax assessment is without merit and that the Company should ultimately prevail. The Company is challenging this assessment vigorously.

Competition Matters

Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries have been subject to investigations, and, in some cases, fines by governmental authorities in a number of countries related to alleged competition law violations. Substantially all of these matters also have involved other consumer goods companies and/or retail customers. These investigations often continue for several years and can result in substantial fines for violations that are found, as well as associated private actions for damages. While the Company cannot predict the final financial impact of pending competition law matters, as these matters may change, the Company evaluates developments in these matters quarterly and accrues liabilities as and when appropriate. The Company’s policy is to comply with antitrust and competition laws and, if a violation of any such laws is found, to take appropriate remedial action and to cooperate fully with any related governmental inquiry. The status of the competition law matters that were pending in 2016 is set forth below.

European Competition Matters

▪

In December 2014, the French competition law authority found that 13 consumer goods companies, including the Company’s French subsidiary, exchanged competitively sensitive information related to the French home care and personal care sectors, for which the Company’s French subsidiary was fined $57. In addition, as a result of the Company’s acquisition of the Sanex personal care business in 2011 from Unilever N.V. and Unilever PLC (together with Unilever N.V., “Unilever”) pursuant to a Business and Share Sale and Purchase Agreement (the “Sale and Purchase Agreement”), the French competition law authority found that the Company’s French subsidiary, along with Hillshire Brands Company (formerly Sara Lee Corporation (“Sara Lee”)), were jointly and severally liable for fines of $25 assessed against Sara Lee’s French subsidiary. The Company is entitled to indemnification for this fine from Unilever as provided in the Sale and Purchase Agreement. The fines were confirmed by the Court of Appeal in October 2016. The Company is appealing the decision of the Court of Appeal on behalf of the Company and Sara Lee in the French Supreme Court.


▪	In July 2014, the Greek competition law authority issued a statement of objections alleging a restriction of parallel imports into Greece. The Company has responded to this statement of objections.


▪	In December 2009, the Swiss competition law authority imposed a fine of $6 on the Company’s GABA subsidiary for alleged violations of restrictions on parallel imports into Switzerland, which the Company appealed. In January 2014, this appeal was denied. The Company had appealed before the Swiss Supreme Court, but its appeal was denied in June 2016.


▪	In December 2010, the Italian competition law authority found that 16 consumer goods companies, including the Company’s Italian subsidiary, exchanged competitively sensitive information in the cosmetics sector, for which the Company’s Italian subsidiary was fined $3. The Company had appealed the fine in the Italian courts, but has decided not to further pursue its appeal.

Australian Competition Matter

In December 2013, the Australian competition law authority instituted civil proceedings in the Sydney registry of the Federal Court of Australia alleging that three consumer goods companies, including the Company’s Australian subsidiary, a retailer and a former employee of the Company’s Australian subsidiary violated the Australian competition law by coordinating the launching and pricing of ultra-concentrated laundry detergents. In 2015, the Company recognized a charge of $14 in connection with this matter. In March 2016, the Company and the Australian competition law authority reached an agreement to settle these proceedings for a total of $14, which includes a fine and cost reimbursement to the competition law authority. The former employee of the Company also reached an agreement to settle. The settlement agreements were approved by the court in May 2016.

Talcum Powder Matters

The Company has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos. Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including suppliers of asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company’s products, were designed to contain asbestos. As of December 31, 2016, there were 115 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States and a number of the pending cases are expected to go to trial in 2017. The Company believes that a significant portion of its costs incurred in defending and resolving these claims will be covered by insurance policies issued by several primary and excess insurance carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions and policy limits.

While the Company and its legal counsel believe that these cases are without merit and intend to challenge them vigorously, there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these matters. Since the amount of any potential losses from these cases currently cannot be reasonably estimated, the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities disclosed above does not include any amount relating to these cases.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit pending in Utah federal court brought by N8 Medical, Inc. (“N8 Medical”), Brigham Young University (“BYU”) and N8 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“N8 Pharma”). The complaint, originally filed in November 2013, alleges breach of contract and other torts arising out of the Company’s evaluation of a technology owned by BYU and licensed, at various times, to Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now in bankruptcy, N8 Medical and N8 Pharma.

In the third quarter of 2016, the court indicated that the claims brought by N8 Pharma would be dismissed in their entirety; N8 Pharma requested that the Court reconsider that decision, but that request was denied. Also in the third quarter of 2016, the Company and BYU agreed to resolve BYU’s claims and in December 2016, the Company and N8 Medical agreed to resolve N8 Medical’s claims. These claims were resolved in an amount that is not material to the Company’s results of operations.