COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Environmental Matters

Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated, based on current law and existing technologies. At September 30, 2016, the Company had accrued obligations of $661 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $72 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. These obligations are included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" and "Other noncurrent obligations" in the consolidated balance sheets. This is management’s best estimate of the costs for remediation and restoration with respect to environmental matters for which the Company has accrued liabilities, although it is reasonably possible that the ultimate cost with respect to these particular matters could range up to approximately two and a half times that amount. Consequently, it is reasonably possible that environmental remediation and restoration costs in excess of amounts accrued could have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. It is the opinion of the Company’s management, however, that the possibility is remote that costs in excess of the range disclosed will have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Inherent uncertainties exist in these estimates primarily due to unknown conditions, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies for handling site remediation and restoration. At December 31, 2015, the Company had accrued obligations of $670 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $74 million for the remediation of Superfund sites.

Midland Off-Site Environmental Matters

A complete description of the Company’s Midland Off-Site Environmental Matters can be found in Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

On July 21, 2016, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality approved a Corrective Action report, including a Remedial Action Plan ("RAP"), for the City of Midland. This is the final regulatory approval required for the City of Midland. Dow is implementing the monitoring and maintenance requirements of the RAP. At September 30, 2016, the accrual for these off-site matters was $57 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $661 million at September 30, 2016). At December 31, 2015, the Company had an accrual for these off-site matters of $62 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $670 million at December 31, 2015).

Environmental Matters Summary

It is the opinion of the Company's management that the possibility is remote that costs in excess of those disclosed will have a material impact on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Litigation

Asbestos-Related Matters of Union Carbide Corporation

Introduction

Union Carbide Corporation (“Union Carbide”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide’s premises, and Union Carbide’s responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. (“Amchem”). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union Carbide’s products.

Union Carbide expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against Union Carbide and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims.

Based on a study completed in January 2003 by Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation (now known as Ankura Consulting Group, LLC (“Ankura”) as a result of the March 2016 merger of Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation and Ankura), Union Carbide increased its December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2 billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since then, Union Carbide has compared current asbestos claim and resolution activity to the results of the most recent Ankura study at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual continues to be appropriate. In addition, Union Carbide has requested Ankura to review Union Carbide’s historical asbestos claim and resolution activity each year since 2004 to determine the appropriateness of updating the most recent Ankura study.

In October 2015, Union Carbide requested Ankura to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2014 study. In response to that request, Ankura reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2015. In December 2015, Ankura stated that an update of its study would not provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate reflected in the December 2014 study and, therefore, the estimate in that study remained applicable. Based on Union Carbide's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity and Ankura's response, Union Carbide determined that no change to the accrual would be required. At December 31, 2015, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $437 million. At December 31, 2015, approximately 21 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 79 percent related to future claims.

Based on Union Carbide’s review of 2016 activity, Union Carbide determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at September 30, 2016. Union Carbide’s asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $398 million at September 30, 2016. Approximately 22 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 78 percent related to future claims.

Union Carbide has receivables for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability as well as receivables for defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage. Union Carbide continues to believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from all insurance carriers is probable of collection. At September 30, 2016, Union Carbide's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability and defense and resolution costs was $41 million ($61 million at December 31, 2015).

Union Carbide expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was $20 million in the third quarter of 2016 ($20 million in the third quarter of 2015) and $55 million in the first nine months of 2016 ($65 million in the first nine months of 2015) and was reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of income.

Summary

The amounts recorded by Union Carbide for the asbestos-related liability and related insurance receivable described above were based upon current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues among insurers, and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries for Union Carbide to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded.

Because of the uncertainties described above, Union Carbide’s management cannot estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem. Union Carbide’s management believes that it is reasonably possible that the cost of disposing of Union Carbide’s asbestos-related claims, including future defense costs, could have a material impact on Union Carbide’s results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of Union Carbide.

It is the opinion of Dow’s management that it is reasonably possible that the cost of Union Carbide disposing of its asbestos-related claims, including future defense costs, could have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of the Company.

Urethane Matters

Class Action Lawsuit

On February 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") as part of a previously announced antitrust investigation of manufacturers of polyurethane chemicals, including methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, toluene diisocyanate, polyether polyols and system house products. The Company cooperated with the DOJ and, following an extensive investigation, on December 10, 2007, the Company received notice from the DOJ that it had closed its investigation of potential antitrust violations involving these products without indictments or pleas.

In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the products that were the subject of the above described DOJ antitrust investigation. These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District Court") or have been tolled. On July 29, 2008, the District Court certified a class of purchasers of the products for the six-year period from 1999 through 2004 ("plaintiff class"). In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial in the District Court with the Company as the sole remaining defendant, the other defendants having previously settled. On February 20, 2013, the jury returned a damages verdict of approximately $400 million against the Company, which ultimately was trebled by the District Court under applicable antitrust laws, less offsets from other settling defendants, resulting in a judgment entered in July 2013 in the amount of $1.06 billion. The Company appealed this judgment to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Tenth Circuit" or "Court of Appeals"), and on September 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the District Court judgment. On October 14, 2014, the Company filed a petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc (collectively the "Rehearing Petition") with the Court of Appeals, which was denied on November 7, 2014.

On March 9, 2015, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari ("Writ Petition") with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking judicial review by the Supreme Court and requesting that it correct fundamental errors in the Circuit Court opinion. In April 2015, six amici filed amicus briefs in support of the Company's Writ Petition. On June 8, 2015, the Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in another case, Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, PEG, et al., ("Tyson Foods") (Supreme Court No. 14-1146), which presented an issue core to the questions presented in the Company's Writ Petition: whether class-wide damages can be determined by simply applying the average injury observed in a sample. The Company's case was considered by the Supreme Court in conference on June 11, 2015. On June 15, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decisions from its conference and did not rule on the Company's Writ Petition. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was not listed for further consideration by the Supreme Court at its weekly conferences. The Company was advised that this meant that the Supreme Court was withholding further consideration of the Company's Writ Petition while it considered the Tyson Foods case on the merits.

On February 26, 2016, the Company announced a proposed settlement under which Dow would pay the plaintiff class $835 million, which includes damages, class attorney fees and post-judgment interest. The agreement was conditioned upon the Supreme Court holding Dow's Writ Petition in abeyance and subsequent approval of the class settlement by the District Court. The proposed settlement resolves the $1.06 billion judgment and any subsequent claim for attorneys' fees, costs and post-judgment interest against Dow. As a result, in the first quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a loss of $835 million, included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income and reflected in the Performance Materials & Chemicals segment. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court approved the joint motion to hold Dow’s Writ Petition in abeyance and on April 27, 2016, the District Court provided preliminary approval of the settlement. On May 11, 2016, the Company moved the $835 million settlement amount into an escrow account (per the terms of the Settlement Agreement). The District Court granted final approval of the settlement on July 29, 2016, and the settlement amount was released from escrow on August 30, 2016.

In the first quarter of 2016, Dow changed its risk assessment on this matter as a result of new growing political uncertainties due to events within the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia's death, and the increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for businesses involved in class action lawsuits. Of particular importance was the fact that Justice Scalia had written the majority opinions in both the Wal-Mart and Comcast cases. The Company continues to believe that it was not part of any conspiracy and the judgment was fundamentally flawed as a matter of class action law. Regardless, the case is now concluded.

Opt-Out Cases

Shortly after the July 2008 class certification ruling, a series of "opt-out" cases were filed by a number of large volume purchasers who elected not to be class members. These opt-out cases are substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded the period of time to include 1994 through 1998. On September 30, 2014, the opt-out cases, which had been consolidated with the class action lawsuit for purposes of pre-trial proceedings were remanded from the District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. A consolidated jury trial of the opt-out cases began on March 8, 2016. On April 5, 2016, the Company entered into a binding settlement for the opt-out cases under which Dow would pay the plaintiffs $400 million, inclusive of damages and attorney fees. Payment of this settlement occurred on May 4, 2016. The Company changed its risk assessment on this matter as a result of the uncertainty of a jury trial outcome along with the automatic trebling of an adverse verdict. As a result, the Company recorded a loss of $400 million in the first quarter of 2016, included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income and reflected in the Performance Materials & Chemicals segment. The Company continues to deny allegations of price fixing and maintains that it was not part of any conspiracy.

Canadian Matters

In addition to the matters described above, there are two separate but inter-related matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. In March 2014, the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Company filed its Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal in March 2014, which was subsequently denied. This matter is currently in the preliminary pre-trial stage, but no trial date has been set. With a certified class in the Ontario case, the Quebec case is effectively rendered moot and, therefore, the parties have agreed that it will not be prosecuted independently of any future outcome in the Ontario case. The Company has concluded it is not probable a loss has been incurred and, therefore, a liability is not recorded with respect to these matters. The Company has determined that any possible loss on these matters is not material to the Company’s results of operations and cash flows as the Company's exposure is significantly less than the Class Action Lawsuit and Opt-Out Cases due to: (i) the limited exposure period based upon other known settlements relating to the Canadian Matters, (ii) antitrust verdicts in Canada are not trebled, and (iii) the Canadian cases are based on different legal theories and different applicable law.

Bayer CropScience v. Dow AgroSciences ICC Arbitration

On August 13, 2012, Bayer CropScience AG and Bayer CropScience NV (together, “Bayer”) filed a request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") International Court of Arbitration against Dow AgroSciences LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and other subsidiaries of the Company (collectively, “DAS”) under a 1992 license agreement executed by predecessors of the parties (the “License Agreement”). In its request for arbitration, Bayer alleged that (i) DAS breached the License Agreement, (ii) the License Agreement was properly terminated with no ongoing rights to DAS, (iii) DAS has infringed and continues to infringe its patent rights related to the use of the pat gene in certain soybean and cotton seed products, and (iv) Bayer is entitled to monetary damages and injunctive relief. DAS denied that it breached the License Agreement and asserted that the License Agreement remained in effect because it was not properly terminated. DAS also asserted that all of Bayer’s patents at issue are invalid and/or not infringed, and, therefore, for these reasons (and others), a license was not required. During the pendency of the arbitration proceeding, DAS filed six re-examination petitions with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) against the Bayer patents, asserting that each patent is invalid based on the doctrine against double-patenting and/or prior art. The USPTO granted all six petitions, and, on February 26, 2015, the USPTO issued an office action rejecting the patentability of the sole Bayer patent claim in the only asserted Bayer patent that has not expired and that forms the basis for the vast majority of the damages in the arbitral award discussed below.

A three-member arbitration tribunal presided over the arbitration proceeding (the “tribunal”). In a decision dated October 9, 2015, the tribunal determined that (i) DAS breached the License Agreement, (ii) Bayer properly terminated the License Agreement, (iii) all of the patents remaining in the proceeding are valid and infringed, and (iv) that Bayer is entitled to monetary damages in the amount of $455 million inclusive of pre-judgment interest and costs (the “arbitral award”). One of the arbitrators, however, issued a partial dissent finding that all of the patents are invalid based on the double-patenting doctrine. The tribunal also denied Bayer’s request for injunctive relief. The arbitration award is not self-executing, and must be confirmed by a court for it to be enforceable and to have the legal effect of a judgment. On October 16, 2015, Bayer filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ("federal district court") seeking to confirm the arbitral award. DAS opposed the motion and filed separate motions to vacate the award, or in the alternative, to stay enforcement of the award until the USPTO issues final office actions with respect to the re-examination proceedings. On January 15, 2016, the federal district court denied DAS's motions and confirmed the award. The USPTO has now issued office actions rejecting the patentability of all four patents that Bayer asserted in the case. The USPTO re-examination proceedings remain ongoing. DAS has appealed the federal district court's decision, and DAS has posted a bond to stay enforcement of the award during the appeal.

The Company believes the arbitral award is fundamentally flawed in numerous respects and is confident that it will be vacated on appeal because it (i) violates U.S. public policy prohibiting enforcement of invalid patents, (ii) manifestly disregards applicable law, and (iii) disregards unambiguous contract provisions and ignores the essence of the applicable contracts. The Company continues to believe that Bayer’s patents are invalid for multiple reasons and that the damages awarded cannot be supported under prevailing patent law, including U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In addition, the Company anticipates that the USPTO will conclude with final office actions declaring each of the patents invalid in the pending re-examination proceedings which will provide a strong basis to vacate the arbitral award. If the federal appellate court denies the Company's appeal, the Company can seek judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As part of the Company’s review of the arbitral award, the Company assessed the legal and factual circumstances of the case, the record of the arbitration and USPTO re-examination status, and the applicable law to vacate the arbitral award. Based on this review and the reasons stated above, the Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to this matter. While the Company believes it is not probable that a loss has been incurred, the existence of the arbitral award and the federal district court confirmation of the award indicates that it is reasonably possible that a loss could occur. The estimate of the possible range of loss to the Company is zero to the $455 million amount set forth in the arbitral award (excluding post-judgment interest).

The arbitral award will not impact DAS’s commercialization of its soybean and cotton seed products, including those containing the ENLIST™ technologies.

Rocky Flats Matter

The Company and Rockwell International Corporation ("Rockwell") (collectively, the "defendants") were defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in 1990 on behalf of property owners ("plaintiffs") in Rocky Flats, Colorado, who asserted claims for nuisance and trespass based on alleged property damage caused by plutonium releases from a nuclear weapons facility owned by the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") (the "facility"). Dow and Rockwell were both DOE contractors that operated the facility - Dow from 1952 to 1975 and Rockwell from 1975 to 1989. The facility was permanently shut down in 1989.

In 1993, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado ("District Court") certified the class of property owners. The plaintiffs tried their case as a public liability action under the Price Anderson Act ("PAA"). In 2005, the jury returned a damages verdict of $926 million. Dow and Rockwell appealed the jury award to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Court of Appeals") which concluded the PAA had its own injury requirements, on which the jury had not been instructed, and also vacated the District Court's class certification ruling, reversed and remanded the case, and vacated the District Court's judgment (Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 618 F.3d 1127, 1133 (10th Cir. 2010)). The plaintiffs argued on remand to the District Court that they were entitled to reinstate the judgment as a state law nuisance claim, independent of the PAA. The District Court rejected that argument and entered judgment in favor of the defendants (Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp, 13 F. Supp. 3d 1153 (D. Colo. 2014)). The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the District Court's ruling, holding that the PAA did not preempt the plaintiffs' nuisance claim under Colorado law and that the plaintiffs could seek reinstatement of the prior nuisance verdict under Colorado law, and remanded for additional proceedings, including consideration of whether the District Court could recertify the class (Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 790 F.3d 1088 (10th Cir. 2015)).

Dow and Rockwell continued to litigate this matter in the District Court and in the United States Supreme Court. On May 18, 2016, Dow, Rockwell and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement for $375 million, of which $131 million will be paid by Dow and $244 million will be paid by Rockwell. The DOE authorized the settlement pursuant to the PAA and the nuclear hazards indemnity provisions contained in Dow and Rockwell's contracts. As a result, the Company expects to be fully indemnified by the DOE for the settlement amount. The District Court granted preliminary approval to the class settlement on August 5, 2016, and set a fairness hearing on the settlement for April 28, 2017. At September 30, 2016, the Company had a liability of $130 million related to this matter (having already paid $1 million towards class notice costs), included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" in the consolidated balance sheets and expects to make the settlement payment to the plaintiffs no later than July 28, 2017. The Company also recorded a receivable of $131 million related to this matter, included in "Noncurrent receivables" in the consolidated balance sheets, and expects to receive its indemnification payment in 2017.

Dow Corning Chapter 11 Related Matters

Introduction

In 1995, Dow Corning, then a 50:50 joint venture between Dow and Corning Incorporated, voluntarily filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in order to resolve Dow Corning’s breast implant liabilities and related matters (the “Chapter 11 Proceeding”). Dow Corning emerged from the Chapter 11 Proceeding on June 1, 2004 (the “Effective Date”) and is implementing the Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). The Plan provides funding for the resolution of breast implant and other product liability litigation covered by the Chapter 11 Proceeding and provides a process for the satisfaction of commercial creditor claims in the Chapter 11 Proceeding. As of June 1, 2016, Dow Corning is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow.

Breast Implant and Other Product Liability Claims

The centerpiece of the Plan is a product liability settlement program administered by an independent claims office (the “Settlement Facility”). Product liability claimants rejecting the settlement program in favor of pursuing litigation must bring suit against a litigation facility (the “Litigation Facility”). Under the Plan, total payments committed by Dow Corning to resolving product liability claims are capped at a maximum $2,350 million net present value (“NPV”) determined as of the Effective Date using a discount rate of seven percent (approximately $3,600 million undiscounted at September 30, 2016). Of this amount, no more than $400 million NPV determined as of the Effective Date can be used to fund the Litigation Facility.

Dow Corning has an obligation to fund the Settlement Facility and the Litigation Facility over a 16-year period, commencing at the Effective Date. Under the Plan, Dow Corning is not required to remit additional funds to the Settlement Facility unless and until necessary to preserve liquidity. As of September 30, 2016, Dow Corning and its insurers have made life-to-date payments of $1,762 million to the Settlement Facility and the Settlement Facility reported an unexpended balance of $152 million.

At September 30, 2016, the Company had a liability recorded for breast implant and other product liability claims (“Implant Liability”) of $290 million, included in “Other noncurrent obligations” in the consolidated balance sheets. The Company recorded the Implant Liability as part of the ownership restructure of Dow Corning on June 1, 2016, and, in accordance with ASC 450 “Accounting for Contingencies,” recognized the estimated impact of the settlement of future claims primarily based on reported claim filing levels in the Revised Settlement Program (the “RSP”). The RSP was a program sponsored by certain other breast implant manufacturers in the context of multi-district, coordinated federal breast implant cases and was open from 1995 through 2010. The RSP was also a revised successor to an earlier settlement plan involving Dow Corning (prior to its bankruptcy filing). While Dow Corning withdrew from the RSP, many of the benefit categories and payment levels in Dow Corning’s settlement program were drawn from the RSP. Based on the comparability in design and actual claim experience of both plans, management concluded that claim information from the RSP provides a reasonable basis to estimate future claim filing levels for the Settlement Facility. With the assistance of a third-party advisor, Dow Corning developed an estimate of the future Settlement Facility liability, primarily based on the assumption that future claim filings in the remaining periods of the Settlement Facility will be similar to claim filing trends observed in the RSP.

Dow Corning is not aware of circumstances that would change the factors used in estimating the liability and believes the recorded liability reflects the best estimate of the remaining funding obligations under the Plan; however, the estimate relies upon a number of significant assumptions, including:


•	Future claim filing levels in the Settlement Facility will be similar to the RSP;


•	Future acceptance rates, disease mix, and payment values will be materially consistent with historical experience;


•	No material negative outcomes in future controversies or disputes over Plan interpretation will occur; and


•	The Plan will not be modified.

If actual outcomes related to any of these assumptions prove to be materially different, the future liability to fund the Plan may be materially different than the amount estimated. If Dow Corning was ultimately required to fund the full liability up to the maximum capped value, the liability would be $1,839 million at September 30, 2016.

Commercial Creditor Issues

The Plan provides that each of Dow Corning’s commercial creditors (the “Commercial Creditors”) would receive in cash the sum of (a) an amount equal to the principal amount of their claims and (b) interest on such claims. The actual amount of interest that will ultimately be paid to these Commercial Creditors is uncertain due to pending litigation between Dow Corning and the Commercial Creditors regarding the appropriate interest rates to be applied to outstanding obligations from the 1995 bankruptcy filing date through the Effective Date, as well as the presence of any recoverable fees, costs, and expenses.

In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that there is a general presumption that contractually specified default interest should be paid by a solvent debtor to unsecured creditors (the “Interest Rate Presumption”) and permitting Dow Corning’s Commercial Creditors to recover fees, costs, and expenses where allowed by relevant loan agreements and state law. The matter was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ("District Court") for further proceedings, including rulings on the facts surrounding specific claims and consideration of any equitable factors that would preclude the application of the Interest Rate Presumption.

Upon the Plan becoming effective, Dow Corning paid approximately $1,500 million to the Commercial Creditors, representing principal and an amount of interest that Dow Corning considers undisputed. At September 30, 2016, Dow Corning has estimated its remaining liability to the Commercial Creditors to be within a range of $106 million to $352 million. However, no single amount within the range appears to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range. Therefore, Dow Corning recorded the minimum liability within the range. At September 30, 2016, the liability related to Dow Corning’s potential obligation to pay additional interest to its Commercial Creditors in the Chapter 11 Proceeding was $106 million and included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" in the consolidated balance sheets. The actual amount of interest that will be paid to these creditors is uncertain and will ultimately be resolved through continued proceedings in the District Court.

Indemnifications

In connection with the DCC Transaction discussed in Note 4, the Company is indemnified for 50 percent of future losses associated with certain pre-closing liabilities, including the Implant Liability and Commercial Creditors matters described above, subject to certain conditions and limits. The maximum amount of indemnified losses which may be recovered are subject to a cap that declines over time. Indemnified losses are capped at (1) $1.5 billion until May 31, 2018, (2) $1 billion between May 31, 2018 and May 31, 2023, and (3) no recoveries are permitted after May 31, 2023. No indemnification assets were recorded at September 30, 2016.

Summary

The actual amount of Dow Corning’s future liabilities to resolve Chapter 11 related matters and future recoveries under related indemnification provisions are uncertain. As additional facts and circumstances develop related to Chapter 11 matters, it is at least reasonably possible that estimates recorded by Dow Corning may be revised. Future revisions, if required, could have a material effect on the Company’s financial position and results of operations in the period or periods in which such revisions are recorded. Since any specific future developments, and the impact such developments might have on amounts recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements, are unknown at this time, an estimate of possible future adjustments cannot be made.

It is the opinion of Dow’s management that it is reasonably possible that the cost of Dow Corning disposing of its Chapter 11 liabilities could have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of the Company.

Other Litigation Matters

In addition to the specific matters described above, the Company is party to a number of other claims and lawsuits arising out of the normal course of business with respect to product liability, patent infringement, governmental regulation, contract and commercial litigation, and other actions. Certain of these actions purport to be class actions and seek damages in very large amounts. All such claims are being contested. Dow has an active risk management program consisting of numerous insurance policies secured from many carriers at various times. These policies may provide coverage that could be utilized to minimize the financial impact, if any, of certain contingencies described above. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the possibility is remote that the aggregate of all such other claims and lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on the results of operations, financial condition and cash flows of the Company.

Purchase Commitments

A summary of the Company's purchase commitments can be found in Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. There have been no material changes to the purchase commitments since December 31, 2015.

Guarantees

The following tables provide a summary of the final expiration, maximum future payments and recorded liability reflected in the consolidated balance sheets for each type of guarantee:



Guarantees at September 30, 2016 In millions	Final Expiration	Maximum Future Payments		Recorded Liability
Guarantees	2021	$	4,884	$	74
Residual value guarantees	2025	917		114
Total guarantees		$	5,801	$	188



Guarantees at December 31, 2015 In millions	Final Expiration	Maximum Future Payments		Recorded Liability
Guarantees	2021	$	4,910	$	102
Residual value guarantees	2025	912		117
Total guarantees		$	5,822	$	219

Guarantees

Guarantees arise during the ordinary course of business from relationships with customers and nonconsolidated affiliates when the Company undertakes an obligation to guarantee the performance of others (via delivery of cash or other assets) if specified triggering events occur. With guarantees, such as commercial or financial contracts, non-performance by the guaranteed party triggers the obligation of the Company to make payments to the beneficiary of the guarantee. The majority of the Company’s guarantees relate to debt of nonconsolidated affiliates, which have expiration dates ranging from less than one year to five years, and trade financing transactions in Latin America, which typically expire within one year of inception. The Company’s current expectation is that future payment or performance related to the non-performance of others is considered unlikely.

The Company has entered into guarantee agreements (“Guarantees”) related to project financing for Sadara, a nonconsolidated affiliate. The total of an Islamic bond and additional project financing (collectively “Total Project Financing”) obtained by Sadara is approximately $12.5 billion. Sadara had $12.2 billion of Total Project Financing outstanding at September 30, 2016 ($11.9 billion at December 31, 2015). The Company's guarantee of the Total Project Financing is in proportion to the Company's 35 percent ownership interest in Sadara, or up to approximately $4.4 billion when the project financing is fully drawn. The Guarantees will be released upon completion of construction of the Sadara complex and satisfactory fulfillment of certain other conditions, including passage of an extensive operational testing program, which is currently anticipated by the end of the first quarter of 2018 and must occur no later than December 2020.

Residual Value Guarantees

The Company provides guarantees related to leased assets specifying the residual value that will be available to the lessor at lease termination through sale of the assets to the lessee or third parties.

Warranties

The Company provides warranty policies on certain products and accrues liabilities under warranty policies using historical warranty claim experience. Adjustments are made to accruals as claim data and historical experience change. The following table summarizes changes in the Company's warranty liability:



Warranty Accrual	Sep 30, 2016			Dec 31, 2015
In millions	Sep 30, 2016			Dec 31, 2015
Balance at January 1	$	93		$	107
Accruals related to existing warranties (1)	11			5
Settlements	(18		)	(19		)
Balance at end of period	$	86		$	93


(1)	In the second quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a pretax charge of $10 million as part of the 2016 restructuring charge. The charge was included in "Restructuring charges" in the consolidated statements of income and reflected in Infrastructure Solutions. See Note 3 for additional information.

Asset Retirement Obligations

The Company has recognized asset retirement obligations for the following activities: demolition and remediation activities at manufacturing and administrative sites primarily in the United States, Canada, Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Europe; and capping activities at landfill sites in the United States, Canada, Brazil and Italy. The Company has also recognized conditional asset retirement obligations related to asbestos encapsulation as a result of planned demolition and remediation activities at manufacturing and administrative sites primarily in the United States, Canada, Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Europe.

The aggregate carrying amount of asset retirement obligations recognized by the Company was $113 million at September 30, 2016 ($96 million at December 31, 2015), which included $14 million of asset retirement obligations assumed in the DCC Transaction. These obligations are included in the consolidated balance sheets as "Accrued and other current liabilities" and "Other noncurrent obligations."

The Company has not recognized conditional asset retirement obligations for which a fair value cannot be reasonably estimated in its consolidated financial statements. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the possibility is remote that such conditional asset retirement obligations, when estimable, will have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements based on current costs.