Commitments and Contingencies

Capital Additions

Estimated costs for future purchases of fixed assets that we are obligated to purchase as of September 30, 2013, total approximately $98.7 million.

Environmental and Other Matters

Environmental compliance requirements are a significant factor affecting our business. We employ processes in the manufacture of pulp, paperboard and other products which result in various discharges, emissions and wastes. These processes are subject to numerous federal, state, local and foreign environmental laws and regulations. We operate and expect to continue to operate, under environmental permits and similar authorizations from various governmental authorities that regulate such discharges, emissions and wastes. Environmental programs in the U.S. are primarily established, administered and enforced at the federal level by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, many of the jurisdictions in which we operate have adopted equivalent or more stringent environmental laws and regulations or have enacted their own parallel environmental programs.

In 2004, the EPA promulgated a Maximum Achievable Control Technology regulation that established air emissions standards and other requirements for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers. The rule was challenged by third parties in litigation, and in 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit issued a decision vacating and remanding the rule to the EPA. Under court order, the EPA published a set of four interrelated rules in March 2011, commonly referred to as Boiler MACT. The EPA also published notice in March 2011 that it would reconsider certain aspects of Boiler MACT in order to address “difficult technical issues” raised during the public comment period. On December 20, 2012, the EPA took final action on its proposed reconsideration of certain provisions of the March 2011 Boiler MACT rules. The Boiler MACT reconsideration rules included certain adjustments based on the EPA’s review of existing and new data provided after the March 2011 standards were issued. For the Company’s boilers where capital may be necessary for compliance, the final December 2012 rule requires compliance by January 31, 2016, subject to a possible one-year extension. Several environmental, industry and other groups have filed legal challenges to the December 2012 final Boiler MACT rules. We cannot predict with certainty how any of the legal challenges will impact our Boiler MACT strategies and costs.

Certain jurisdictions in which the Company has manufacturing facilities or other investments have taken actions to address climate change. In the U.S., the EPA has issued the Clean Air Act permitting regulations applicable to facilities that emit greenhouse gases. These regulations became effective for certain GHG sources on January 2, 2011, with implementation for other sources to be phased in over the next several years. The EPA also has promulgated a rule requiring facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to file an annual report of their emissions. Some U.S. states and Canadian provinces in which RockTenn has manufacturing operations are also taking measures to reduce GHG emissions. For example, Quebec, has become a member of the Western Climate Initiative, which is a collaboration of U.S. states, Canadian provinces, Mexican states and tribes that have joined together to create a cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG emissions. On November 18, 2009, Quebec adopted a target of reducing GHG emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. In December 2011, Quebec issued a final regulation establishing a cap-and-trade program that required reductions in GHG emissions from covered emitters as of January 1, 2013. Enactment of the Quebec cap-and-trade program may require capital expenditures to modify certain assets at our containerboard mill in Quebec to meet required GHG emission reduction requirements in future years. Such requirements also may increase energy costs above the level of general inflation and result in direct compliance and other costs. However, we do not believe that compliance with the requirements of the new cap-and-trade program will have a material adverse effect on our operations or financial condition. We have systems in place for tracking the GHG emissions from our energy-intensive facilities, and we carefully monitor developments in climate change laws, regulations and policies to assess the potential impact of such developments on our operations and financial condition.

In addition to Boiler MACT and greenhouse gas standards, the EPA has finalized a number of other environmental rules that may impact the pulp and paper industry, including National Ambient Air Quality Standards for nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and fine particulate matter. The EPA is also revising existing environmental standards and developing several new rules that may apply to the industry in the future. We cannot currently predict with certainty how any future changes in environmental laws, regulations and/or enforcement practices will affect our business; however, it is possible that our compliance with new environmental standards may require substantial capital expenditures or operating costs could increase materially.

On October 1, 2010, our Hopewell, Virginia containerboard mill received a Finding of Violation and Notice of Violation from EPA Region III alleging certain violations of regulations that require treatment of kraft pulping condensates. We strongly disagree with the assertion of the violations in the NOV and are currently engaged in settlement negotiations regarding the matters alleged in the NOV. We believe that any potential fine relating to those matters will not have a significant adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. We also are involved in various other administrative proceedings relating to environmental matters that arise in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate outcome of such matters cannot be predicted with certainty and we cannot at this time estimate any reasonably possible losses, management does not believe that the currently expected outcome of any environmental proceeding or claim that is pending or threatened against us will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

We also face potential liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and analogous state laws as a result of releases, or threatened releases, of hazardous substances into the environment from various sites owned and operated by third parties at which Company-generated wastes have allegedly been deposited. Generators of hazardous substances sent to off-site disposal locations at which environmental problems exist, as well as the owners of those sites and certain other classes of persons, all of whom are referred to as potentially responsible parties are, in most instances, subject to joint and several liability for response costs for the investigation and remediation of such sites under CERCLA and analogous state laws, regardless of fault or the lawfulness of the original disposal. Liability is typically shared with other PRPs and costs are commonly allocated according to relative amounts of waste deposited and other factors.

On January 26, 2009, Smurfit-Stone and certain of its subsidiaries filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Smurfit-Stone’s Canadian subsidiaries also filed to reorganize in Canada. We believe that matters relating to previously identified third party PRP sites and certain formerly owned facilities of Smurfit-Stone have been or will be satisfied claims in the Smurfit-Stone bankruptcy proceedings. However, we may face additional liability for cleanup activity at sites that existed prior to bankruptcy discharge, but are not currently identified. Some of these liabilities may be satisfied from existing bankruptcy reserves. We may also face liability under CERCLA and analogous state and other laws at other ongoing and future remediation sites where we may be a PRP. In addition to the above mentioned sites, certain of our current or former locations are being studied or remediated under various environmental laws and regulations. Based on current facts and assumptions, we do not believe that the costs of these projects will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

We believe that we can assert claims for indemnification pursuant to existing rights we have under settlement and purchase agreements in connection with certain of our existing remediation sites. However, there can be no assurance that we will be successful with respect to any claim regarding these indemnification rights or that, if we are successful, any amounts paid pursuant to the indemnification rights will be sufficient to cover all our costs and expenses. We also cannot predict with certainty whether we will be required to perform remediation projects at other locations, and it is possible that our remediation requirements and costs could increase materially in the future. In addition, we cannot currently assess with certainty the impact that future federal, state or other environmental laws, regulations or enforcement practices will have on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Our operations are subject to federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations relating to workplace safety and worker health including the Occupational Safety and Health Act and related regulations. OSHA, among other things, establishes asbestos and noise standards and regulates the use of hazardous chemicals in the workplace. Although we do not use asbestos in manufacturing our products, some of our facilities contain asbestos. For those facilities where asbestos is present, we believe we have properly contained the asbestos and/or we have conducted training of our employees in an effort to ensure that no federal, state or local rules or regulations are violated in the maintenance of our facilities. We do not believe that future compliance with health and safety laws and regulations will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

As of September 30, 2013, we had approximately $4.3 million reserved for environmental liabilities on an undiscounted basis, of which $3.1 million is included in other long-term liabilities and $1.2 million in other current liabilities. We believe the liability for these matters was adequately reserved at September 30, 2013.

Other Litigation

In late 2010, Smurfit-Stone was one of nine U.S. and Canadian containerboard producers named as defendants in a lawsuit, in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that these producers violated the Sherman Act by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 through November 8, 2010. RockTenn CP, LLC, as the successor to Smurfit-Stone, is a defendant with respect to the period after Smurfit-Stone’s discharge from bankruptcy in June 30, 2010 through November 8, 2010. The complaint seeks treble damages and costs, including attorney’s fees. The defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint were denied by the court in April 2011. We believe the allegations are without merit and will defend this lawsuit vigorously. However, as the lawsuit is still in the early stages of discovery, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.

We are a defendant in a number of other lawsuits and claims arising out of the conduct of our business. While the ultimate results of such suits or other proceedings against us cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes the resolution of these other matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Guarantees

We have made the following guarantees as of September 30, 2013:


•	we have a 49% ownership interest in Seven Hills Paperboard, LLC. The joint venture partners guarantee funding of net losses in proportion to their share of ownership;

•

we have a wood chip processing contract with minimum purchase commitments which expire in 2017. As part of the agreement, we guarantee the third party contractors' debt outstanding and have a security interest in the chipping equipment. At September 30, 2013, the maximum potential amount of future payments related to these guarantees was approximately $7 million, which decreases ratably over the life of the contracts. In the event the guarantees on these contracts were called, proceeds from the liquidation of the chipping equipment would be based on current market conditions and we may not recover in full the guarantee payments made;


•	as part of acquisitions we have acquired unconsolidated entities for which we guarantee approximately $5 million in debt, primarily for bank loans; and


•	we lease certain manufacturing and warehousing facilities and equipment under various operating leases. A substantial number of these leases require us to indemnify the lessor in the event that additional taxes are assessed due to a change in the tax law. We are unable to estimate our maximum exposure under these leases because it is dependent on changes in the tax law.

Seven Hills Option

Seven Hills commenced operations on March 29, 2001. Our partner in the Seven Hills joint venture has the option to require us to purchase its interest in Seven Hills, at a formula price, effective on the sixth or any subsequent anniversary of the commencement date by providing us notice two years prior to any such anniversary. The earliest date on which we could be required to purchase our partner’s interest is March 29, 2016. We have not recorded any liability for this unexercised option. We currently project this contingent obligation to purchase our partner’s interest (based on the formula) to be approximately $11 million at September 30, 2013, which would result in a purchase price of approximately 54% of our partner’s net equity reflected on Seven Hills’ September 30, 2013 balance sheet.