COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Environmental Matters

Introduction

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 December 31, 2016, the Company had accrued obligations of $909 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $151 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 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 or 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.

In the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a pretax charge of $295 million for environmental remediation at a number of historical locations, including the Midland manufacturing site/off-site matters and the Wood-Ridge sites, primarily resulting from the culmination of negotiations with regulators and/or final agency approval. These charges are included in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of income and are included in the total accrued obligation of $909 million.

The following table summarizes the activity in the Company's accrued obligations for environmental matters for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:



Accrued Obligations for Environmental Matters
In millions	2016			2015
Balance at January 1	$	670		$	706
Accrual adjustment	479			230
Payments against reserve	(246		)	(233		)
Foreign currency impact	6			(33		)
Balance at December 31	$	909		$	670

The amounts charged to income on a pretax basis related to environmental remediation totaled $504 million in 2016, $218 million in 2015 and $227 million in 2014. Capital expenditures for environmental protection were $66 million in 2016, $49 million in 2015 and $78 million in 2014.

Midland Off-Site Environmental Matters

On June 12, 2003, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") issued a Hazardous Waste Operating License (the "License") to the Company’s Midland, Michigan manufacturing site (the “Midland site”), which was renewed and replaced by the MDEQ on September 25, 2015, and included provisions requiring the Company to conduct an investigation to determine the nature and extent of off-site contamination in the City of Midland soils, the Tittabawassee River and Saginaw River sediment and floodplain soils, and the Saginaw Bay, and, if necessary, undertake remedial action.

City of Midland

On March 6, 2012, the Company submitted an Interim Response Activity Plan Designed to Meet Criteria ("Work Plan") to the MDEQ that involved the sampling of soil at residential properties near the Midland site for the presence of dioxins to determine where clean-up may be required and then conducting remediation for properties that sampled above the remediation criteria. The MDEQ approved the Work Plan on June 1, 2012 and implementation of the Work Plan began on June 4, 2012. The Company also submitted and had approved by the MDEQ, amendments to the Work Plan. As of December 31, 2014, remediation was completed on all 132 properties that tested above the remediation criteria, and this completion is noted in the License. On July 21, 2016, the MDEQ 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.

Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers, Saginaw Bay

The Company, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the State of Michigan ("State") entered into an administrative order on consent (“AOC”), effective January 21, 2010, that requires the Company to conduct a remedial investigation, a feasibility study and a remedial design for the Tittabawassee River, the Saginaw River and the Saginaw Bay, and pay the oversight costs of the EPA and the State under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. These actions, to be conducted under the lead oversight of the EPA, will build upon the investigative work completed under the State Resource Conservation Recovery Act program from 2005 through 2009.

The Tittabawassee River, beginning at the Midland Site and extending down to the first six miles of the Saginaw River, are designated as the first Operable Unit for purposes of conducting the remedial investigation, feasibility study and remedial design work. This work will be performed in a largely upriver to downriver sequence for eight geographic segments of the Tittabawassee and upper Saginaw Rivers. In the first quarter of 2012, the EPA requested the Company address the Tittabawassee River floodplain ("Floodplain") as an additional segment. In August 2014, the EPA proposed for public comment the techniques that can be used to remedy the Floodplain, including proposed site specific clean-up criteria. In January 2015, the Company and the EPA entered into an order to address remediation of the Floodplain. The remedial work is expected to take place over the next five years. The remainder of the Saginaw River and the Saginaw Bay are designated as a second Operable Unit and the work associated with that unit may also be geographically segmented. The AOC does not obligate the Company to perform removal or remedial action; that action can only be required by a separate order. The Company and the EPA will be negotiating orders separate from the AOC that will obligate the Company to perform remedial actions under the scope of work of the AOC. The Company and the EPA have entered into three separate orders to perform limited remedial actions to implement early actions - three separate orders to address remedial actions in three of the nine geographic segments in the first Operable Unit - and the order to address the Floodplain.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Process

The Company, the EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the natural resource damage trustees (which include the Michigan Office of the Attorney General, the MDEQ, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Saginaw-Chippewa tribe) have been engaged in negotiations to seek to resolve potential governmental claims against the Company related to historical off-site contamination associated with the City of Midland, the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers and the Saginaw Bay. The Company and the governmental parties started meeting in the fall of 2005 and entered into a Confidentiality Agreement in December 2005. The Company continues to conduct negotiations under the Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution Act with all of the governmental parties, except the EPA which withdrew from the alternative dispute resolution process on September 12, 2007.

On September 28, 2007, the Company and the natural resource damage trustees entered into a Funding and Participation Agreement that addressed the Company’s payment of past costs incurred by the natural resource damage trustees, payment of the costs of a trustee coordinator and a process to review additional cooperative studies that the Company might agree to fund or conduct with the natural resource damage trustees. On March 18, 2008, the Company and the natural resource damage trustees entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to provide a mechanism for the Company to fund cooperative studies related to the assessment of natural resource damages. This MOU was amended and funding of cooperative studies was extended until March 2014. All cooperative studies have been completed. On April 7, 2008, the natural resource damage trustees released their “Natural Resource Damage Assessment Plan for the Tittabawassee River System Assessment Area.”

At December 31, 2016, the accrual for these off-site matters was $93 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $909 million). 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).

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 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. 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.

Estimating the Liability for Asbestos-Related 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 a 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 2014, Union Carbide requested Ankura to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2012 study. In response to that request, Ankura reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2014. The resulting study, completed by Ankura in December 2014, estimated the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, excluding future defense and processing costs, was between $540 million and $640 million through 2029 based on the data as of September 30, 2014.

In December 2014, based on Ankura's December 2014 study and Union Carbide's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity, Union Carbide determined that an adjustment to the accrual was required due to the increase in mesothelioma claim activity compared with what had been forecasted in the December 2012 study. Accordingly, Union Carbide increased its asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims by $78 million, which was included in "Asbestos-related charge" in the consolidated statements of income. At December 31, 2014, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $513 million, and approximately 22 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 78 percent related to future claims.

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 December 2014 study would not provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate reflected in the 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 was required. At December 31, 2015, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $437 million, and approximately 21 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 79 percent related to future claims.

In October 2016, 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 the request, Ankura reviewed and analyzed asbestos-related claim and resolution data through September 30, 2016. The resulting study, completed by Ankura in December 2016, provided estimates for the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, excluding future defense and processing costs, for both a 15-year period and through the terminal year of 2049.

Based on the study completed in December 2016 by Ankura, and Union Carbide's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity, it was determined that an adjustment to the accrual was necessary. Union Carbide determined that using the estimate through the terminal year of 2049 was more appropriate due to increasing knowledge and data about the costs to resolve claims and diminished volatility in filing rates. Using the range in the Ankura December 2016 study, which was estimated to be between $502 million and $565 million for the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims, Union Carbide increased its asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims through the terminal year of 2049 by $104 million, included in "Asbestos-related charge" in the consolidated statements of income. At December 31, 2016, Union Carbide's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $486 million, and approximately 14 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 86 percent related to future claims.

Estimating the Asbestos-Related Liability for Defense and Processing Costs

In September 2014, Union Carbide began to implement a strategy designed to reduce and to ultimately stabilize and forecast defense costs associated with asbestos-related matters. The strategy included a number of important changes including: invoicing protocols including capturing costs by plaintiff; review of existing counsel roles, work processes and workflow; and the utilization of enterprise legal management software, which enabled claim-specific tracking of asbestos-related defense and processing costs. Union Carbide reviewed the information generated from this new strategy and determined that it now had the ability to reasonably estimate asbestos-related defense and processing costs for the same periods that it estimates its asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims. Union Carbide believes that including estimates of the liability for asbestos-related defense and processing costs provides a more complete assessment and measure of the liability associated with resolving asbestos-related matters, which Union Carbide and the Company believe is preferable in these circumstances.

In October 2016, in addition to the study for asbestos claim and resolution activity, Union Carbide requested Ankura to review asbestos-related defense and processing costs and provide an estimate of defense and processing costs associated with resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem for the same periods of time that Union Carbide uses for estimating resolution costs. In December 2016, Ankura conducted the study and provided Union Carbide with an estimate of future defense and processing costs for both a 15-year period and through the terminal year of 2049. The resulting study estimated asbestos-related defense and processing costs for pending and future asbestos claims to be between $1,009 million and $1,081 million through the terminal year of 2049.

In the fourth quarter of 2016, Union Carbide and the Company elected to change their method of accounting for asbestos-related defense and processing costs from expensing as incurred to estimating and accruing a liability. This change is believed to be preferable as asbestos-related defense and processing costs represent expenditures related to legacy activities that do not contribute to current or future revenue generating activities of the Company. The change is also reflective of the manner in which Union Carbide manages its asbestos-related exposure, including careful monitoring of the correlation between defense spending and resolution costs. Together, these two sources of cost more accurately represent the “total cost” of resolving asbestos-related claims now and in the future.

This accounting policy change has been reflected as a change in accounting estimate effected by a change in accounting principle. As a result of this accounting policy change and based on the December 2016 Ankura study of asbestos-related defense and processing costs and Union Carbide's own review of the data, Union Carbide recorded a pretax charge for asbestos-related defense and processing costs of $1,009 million in the fourth quarter of 2016, included in “Asbestos-related charge” in the consolidated statements of income. Union Carbide’s total asbestos-related liability, including defense and processing costs, was $1,490 million at December 31, 2016, and was included in “Accrued and other current liabilities” and “Asbestos-related liabilities - noncurrent” in the consolidated balance sheets.

Insurance Receivables

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 December 31, 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).

Summary

The Company’s management believes the amounts recorded by Union Carbide for the asbestos-related liability (including defense and processing costs) reflect reasonable and probable estimates of the liability based upon current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed and/or received each year and the average cost of defending and disposing of each such claim, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual costs for Union Carbide to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. Any such events could result in an increase or decrease in the recorded liability.

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. On July 29, 2008, a Kansas City federal district court (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 with the Company as the sole remaining defendant, the other defendants having previously settled. On February 20, 2013, the federal jury returned a damages verdict of approximately $400 million against the Company, which ultimately was trebled 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 March 9, 2015, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari ("Writ Petition") with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking judicial review and requesting that it correct fundamental errors in the Circuit Court opinion. 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 was advised that its Writ Petition was being held pending the Supreme Court's consideration of the merits in Tyson Foods.

In the first quarter of 2016, the Company changed its risk assessment on this matter as a result of 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. On February 26, 2016, the Company announced a proposed settlement under which the Company would pay the plaintiff class $835 million, which included damages, class attorney fees and post-judgment interest. The district court granted final approval of the settlement on July 29, 2016, and the settlement amount, having previously been funded by the Company into an escrow account, was released to a court administrator for distribution to the various class members. The settlement resolves the $1.06 billion judgment and any subsequent claim for attorneys' fees, costs and post-judgment interest against the Company. 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. 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.

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 in the district court case. These opt-out cases were substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded the period of time to include 1994 through 1998. A consolidated jury trial of the opt-out cases began on March 8, 2016. Prior to a jury verdict, on April 5, 2016, the Company entered into a binding settlement for the opt-out cases under which the Company would pay the named 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 class settlement and 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. As with the class action case, the Company continues to deny allegations of price fixing and maintains that it was not part of any conspiracy.

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 (the "'962 patent") 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' motions and confirmed the award. DAS has appealed the federal district court's decision, and DAS has posted a bond to stay enforcement of the award during the appeal. Briefing for the appeal is complete and oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has been scheduled for February 9, 2017.

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. The USPTO has issued office actions rejecting the patentability of all four patents that Bayer asserted in the case. In January 2017, the USPTO issued final office actions for two of the patents asserted in the case, including the ‘962 patent, in which it rejected all relevant claims based on the doctrine against double-patenting. The re-examination proceedings with respect to the other two patents remain pending, although the Company anticipates that the USPTO will likewise invalidate those patents under the double-patenting doctrine. Although Bayer may appeal these decisions to the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Company believes the USPTO final office actions 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 was to be paid by Dow and $244 million was to be paid by Rockwell (collectively, the "Settlement Agreement"). The DOE authorized the settlement pursuant to the PAA and the nuclear hazards indemnity provisions contained in Dow and Rockwell's contracts. The District Court granted preliminary approval to the class settlement on August 5, 2016. On December 13, 2016, the United States Civil Board of Contract Appeals unanimously ordered the United States government to pay the amounts stipulated in the Settlement Agreement. At December 31, 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 a receivable of $131 million, included in "Accounts and notes receivable - Other" in the consolidated balance sheets. On January 17, 2017, the Company received a full indemnity payment ($131 million) from the United States government for Dow's share of the class settlement. The Company subsequently funded an escrow account for the settlement payment owed to the plaintiffs, which will remain in escrow until the settlement is approved by the District Court and finalized. A fairness hearing on the class settlement is scheduled for April 28, 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 December 31, 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 December 31, 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 $148 million.

On June 1, 2016, as part of the ownership restructure of Dow Corning and in accordance with ASC 450 "Accounting for Contingencies," the Company recorded a liability of $290 million for breast implant and other product liability claims (“Implant Liability”), which reflected the estimated impact of the settlement of future claims primarily based on reported claim filing levels in the Revised Settlement Program (the “RSP”) and on the resolution of almost all cases pending against the Litigation Facility. 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.

In 2014, with the assistance of a third party consultant ("consultant"), Dow Corning developed an estimate of its Implant Liability ("2014 Estimate"), 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. In the fourth quarter of 2016, Dow Corning requested the consultant review the available data and determine the appropriateness of updating the 2014 Estimate. In response to that request, the consultant reviewed and analyzed data through June 30, 2016, and updated its estimate of the Implant Liability to $263 million, primarily reflecting a decrease in Class 7 costs (claimants who have breast implants made by certain other manufacturers using primarily Dow Corning silicone gel), a decrease resulting from the passage of time (claims forecast as future claims in 2014 had, by 2016, been filed and resolved), decreased claim filing activity and administrative costs compared with the 2014 Estimate, and an increase in investment income resulting from insurance proceeds. In December 2016, based on the consultant's updated estimate and Dow Corning's own review of claim filing activity, Dow Corning determined that an adjustment to the Implant Liability was required. Accordingly, Dow Corning decreased its Implant Liability by $27 million, which is included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income. At December 31, 2016, the Implant Liability was $263 million, which is included in "Other noncurrent obligations" in the consolidated balance sheets.

Dow Corning is not aware of circumstances that would change the factors used in estimating the Implant Liability and believes the recorded Implant 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 $1,867 million at December 31, 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 December 31, 2016, Dow Corning has estimated its remaining liability to the Commercial Creditors to be within a range of $108 million to $356 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 December 31, 2016, the liability related to Dow Corning’s potential obligation to pay additional interest to its Commercial Creditors in the Chapter 11 Proceeding was $108 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 December 31, 2016.

Summary

The amounts recorded by Dow Corning for the Chapter 11 related matters described above were based upon current, known facts, which management believes reflect reasonable and probable estimates of the liability. However, future events could cause the actual costs for Dow Corning to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. Any such events could result in an increase or decrease in the recorded liability.

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, employment matters, governmental tax and regulation disputes, 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

The Company has various commitments for take-or-pay and throughput agreements. These commitments are at prices not in excess of current market prices. The remaining terms for all but one of these agreements extend from 1 to 28 years. One agreement has a remaining term of 60 years. The 10-year future commitments for this agreement as well as the fixed and determinable portion of all other obligations under the Company's purchase commitments have been updated as of December 31, 2016, and are included in the following table:



Fixed and Determinable Portion of Take-or-Pay and Throughput Obligations at December 31, 2016 In millions
2017	$	2,600
2018	2,498
2019	2,172
2020	2,083
2021	1,725
2022 and beyond	7,304
Total	$	18,382

In addition to the take-or-pay obligations at December 31, 2016, the Company had outstanding commitments which ranged from 1 to 25 years for materials, services and other items used in the normal course of business of approximately $732 million. Such commitments were at prices not in excess of current market prices.

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 December 31, 2016 In millions	Final Expiration	Maximum Future Payments		Recorded Liability
Guarantees	2021	$	5,096	$	86
Residual value guarantees	2027	947		134
Total guarantees		$	6,043	$	220



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 $12.4 billion of Total Project Financing outstanding at December 31, 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.

In 2014, the Company entered into a residual value guarantee as part of a sale-leaseback transaction for a significant portion of its North American railcar fleet. The sale transaction resulted in a deferred gain of $102 million, which was recorded as a liability due to the guarantee and will be deferred until expiration of the ten-year lease unless otherwise terminated. The maximum value of the guarantee was $234 million at December 31, 2016 ($236 million at December 31, 2015).

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 for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:



Warranty Accrual
In millions	2016			2015
Balance at January 1	$	93		$	107
Accruals related to existing warranties (1)	11			5
Settlements made during the year	(20		)	(19		)
Balance at December 31	$	84		$	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 (credits)" in the consolidated statements of income and reflected in Infrastructure Solutions. See Note 3 for additional information.

Asset Retirement Obligations

Dow has 189 manufacturing sites in 34 countries. Most of these sites contain numerous individual manufacturing operations, particularly at the Company’s larger sites. Asset retirement obligations are recorded as incurred and reasonably estimable, including obligations for which the timing and/or method of settlement are conditional on a future event that may or may not be within the control of the Company. The retirement of assets may involve such efforts as remediation and treatment of asbestos, contractually required demolition, and other related activities, depending on the nature and location of the assets; and retirement obligations are typically realized only upon demolition of those facilities. In identifying asset retirement obligations, the Company considers identification of legally enforceable obligations, changes in existing law, estimates of potential settlement dates and the calculation of an appropriate discount rate to be used in calculating the fair value of the obligations. Dow has a well-established global process to identify, approve and track the demolition of retired or to-be-retired facilities; and no assets are retired from service until this process has been followed. Dow typically forecasts demolition projects based on the usefulness of the assets; environmental, health and safety concerns; and other similar considerations. Under this process, as demolition projects are identified and approved, reasonable estimates are determined for the time frames during which any related asset retirement obligations are expected to be settled. For those assets where a range of potential settlement dates may be reasonably estimated, obligations are recorded. Dow routinely reviews all changes to items under consideration for demolition to determine if an adjustment to the value of the asset retirement obligation is required.

The Company has recognized asset retirement obligations for the following activities: demolition and remediation activities at manufacturing sites primarily in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina 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 and Europe. The aggregate carrying amount of conditional asset retirement obligations recognized by the Company (included in the asset retirement obligations balance shown below) was $31 million at December 31, 2016 ($33 million at December 31, 2015).

The following table shows changes in the aggregate carrying amount of the Company’s asset retirement obligations for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:



Asset Retirement Obligations
In millions	2016			2015
Balance at January 1	$	96		$	84
Additional accruals (1)	17			8
Liabilities settled	(9		)	(8		)
Accretion expense	2			1
Revisions in estimated cash flows	5			17
Other	(1		)	(6		)
Balance at December 31	$	110		$	96


(1)	Includes $14 million of asset retirement obligations from the DCC Transaction.

The discount rate used to calculate the Company’s asset retirement obligations at December 31, 2016, was 1.87 percent (1.48 percent at December 31, 2015). 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. Assets that have not been submitted/reviewed for potential demolition activities are considered to have continued usefulness and are generally still operating normally. Therefore, without a plan to demolish the assets or the expectation of a plan, such as shortening the useful life of assets for depreciation purposes in accordance with the accounting guidance related to property, plant and equipment, the Company is unable to reasonably forecast a time frame to use for present value calculations. As such, the Company has not recognized obligations for individual plants/buildings at its manufacturing sites where estimates of potential settlement dates cannot be reasonably made. In addition, the Company has not recognized conditional asset retirement obligations for the capping of its approximately 42 underground storage wells and 141 underground brine mining and other wells at Dow-owned sites when there are no plans or expectations of plans to exit the sites. 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.