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 March 31, 2018, the Company had accrued obligations of $868 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $150 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 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, 2017, the Company had accrued obligations of $878 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $152 million for the remediation of Superfund sites.

Litigation

Asbestos-Related Matters of Union Carbide Corporation

A summary of Asbestos-Related Matters of Union Carbide Corporation can be found in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.

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 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.

Estimating the Asbestos-Related Liability

Since 2003, Union Carbide has engaged Ankura Consulting Group, LLC ("Ankura"), a third party actuarial specialist, to review Union Carbide's historical asbestos-related claim and resolution activity in order to assist Union Carbide's management in estimating the asbestos-related liability. Each year, Ankura has reviewed the claim and resolution activity to determine the appropriateness of updating the most recent Ankura study.

Based on the December 2017 Ankura review and Union Carbide's own review of the data, Union Carbide's total asbestos-related liability through the terminal year of 2049, including asbestos-related defense and processing costs, was $1,369 million at December 31, 2017, and included in “Accrued and other current liabilities” and “Asbestos-related liabilities - noncurrent” in the consolidated balance sheets.

Each quarter, Union Carbide reviews claims filed, settled and dismissed, as well as average settlement and resolution costs by disease category. Union Carbide also considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of pending claims, trial experience of Union Carbide and other asbestos defendants, current spending for defense and processing costs, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, trends in the tort system, and their respective effects on expected future resolution costs. Union Carbide's management considers all these factors in conjunction with the most recent Ankura study and determines whether a change in the estimate is warranted. Based on Union Carbide's review of 2018 activity, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at March 31, 2018.

Union Carbide’s asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was $1,339 million at March 31, 2018, and approximately 16 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 84 percent related to future claims.

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, the average cost of defending and disposing of each such claim, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States over a significant period of time, 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.

Because of the uncertainties described above, Union Carbide cannot estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem. As a result, it is reasonably possible that an additional cost of disposing of Union Carbide's asbestos-related claims, including future defense and processing 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.

Bayer CropScience v. Dow AgroSciences ICC Arbitration

A summary of the Bayer CropScience v. Dow AgroSciences ICC Arbitration can be found in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.

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 infringed its patent rights related to the use of the pat gene in certain soybean and cotton seed products, and (iv) Bayer was 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.

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.

On March 1, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") affirmed the arbitral award. As a result of this action, in the first quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a loss of $469 million, inclusive of the arbitral award and post-judgment interest, which was included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income. On May 26, 2017, the Company paid the $469 million arbitral award to Bayer as a result of that decision. On September 11, 2017, DAS filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to review the case, but the Court denied DAS’s petition. The litigation is now concluded with no risk of further liability.

Rocky Flats Matter

A summary of the Rocky Flats Matter can be found in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.

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") but operated by Dow and Rockwell. The plaintiffs tried their case as a public liability action under the Price Anderson Act ("PAA"). Dow and Rockwell litigated this matter in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ("District Court"), the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and then filed a petition for writ of certiorari 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 paid by Dow. The DOE authorized the settlement pursuant to the PAA and the nuclear hazards indemnity provisions contained in Dow's and Rockwell's contracts. On April 28, 2017, the District Court conducted a fairness hearing and granted final judgment approving the class settlement and dismissed class claims against the defendants ("final judgment order").

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. On January 17, 2017, the Company received a full indemnity payment of $131 million from the United States government for Dow's share of the class settlement. On January 26, 2017, the Company placed $130 million in an escrow account for the settlement payment owed to the plaintiffs. The funds were subsequently released from escrow as a result of the final judgment order. The litigation is now concluded.

Dow Silicones Chapter 11 Related Matters

A summary of the Dow Silicones Chapter 11 Related Matters can be found in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.

Introduction

In 1995, Dow Silicones, then a 50:50 joint venture between Dow and Corning Incorporated ("Corning"), voluntarily filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in order to resolve Dow Silicones’ breast implant liabilities and related matters (the “Chapter 11 Proceeding”). Dow Silicones 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 Silicones is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow.

Breast Implant and Other Product Liability Claims

Under the Plan, a product liability settlement program administered by an independent claims office (the “Settlement Facility”) was created to resolve breast implant and other product liability claims. Product liability claimants rejecting the settlement program in favor of pursuing litigation must bring suit against a litigation facility (the “Litigation Facility”). Dow Silicones has an obligation to fund the Settlement Facility and the Litigation Facility over a 16-year period, commencing at the Effective Date. At March 31, 2018, Dow Silicones 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 $130 million.

Dow Silicones' liability for breast implant and other product liability claims ("Implant Liability") was $263 million at March 31, 2018 ($263 million at December 31, 2017), which was included in "Other noncurrent obligations" in the consolidated balance sheets. Dow Silicones is not aware of circumstances that would change the factors used in estimating the Implant 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 those in a prior settlement program, which management uses to estimate future claim filing levels for the Settlement Facility; 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 Silicones was ultimately required to fund the full liability up to the maximum capped value, the liability would be $2,015 million at March 31, 2018.

Commercial Creditor Issues

The Plan provides that each of Dow Silicones' 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 Silicones 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. Upon the Plan becoming effective, Dow Silicones paid approximately $1,500 million to the Commercial Creditors, representing principal and an amount of interest that Dow Silicones considers undisputed. At March 31, 2018, the liability related to Dow Silicones' potential obligation to pay additional interest to its Commercial Creditors in the Chapter 11 Proceeding was $79 million and is included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" in the consolidated balance sheets ($78 million at December 31, 2017). 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 June 1, 2016, ownership restructure of Dow Silicones, the Company is indemnified by Corning 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. No indemnification assets were recorded at March 31, 2018 or December 31, 2017.

Summary

The amounts recorded by Dow Silicones for the Chapter 11 related matters described above were based on current, known facts, which management believes reflect reasonable and probable estimates of the liability. However, future events could cause the actual costs for Dow Silicones 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.

Gain Contingency - Dow v. Nova Chemicals Corporation Patent Infringement Matter

A summary of the Dow v. Nova Chemicals Corporation Patent Infringement Matter can be found in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.

On December 9, 2010, Dow filed suit in the Federal Court in Ontario, Canada ("Federal Court") alleging that Nova Chemicals Corporation ("Nova") was infringing the Company's Canadian polyethylene patent 2,106,705. Nova counterclaimed on the grounds of invalidity and non-infringement. On June 29, 2017, the Federal Court issued a Confidential Supplemental Judgment, concluding that Nova must pay $645 million Canadian dollars (equivalent to $495 million U.S. dollars) to Dow, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, for which Dow received payment of $501 million from Nova on July 6, 2017. Although Nova is appealing portions of the damages judgment, certain portions of it are indisputable and will be owed to Dow regardless of the outcome of any further appeals by Nova. At March 31, 2018, the Company had $341 million ($341 million at December 31, 2017) included in "Other noncurrent obligations" related to the disputed portion of the damages judgment. Dow is confident of its chances of defending the entire judgment on appeal, particularly the trial court's determinations on important factual issues, which will be accorded deferential review on appeal.

Guarantees

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



Guarantees	Mar 31, 2018					Dec 31, 2017
In millions	Final Expiration	Maximum Future Payments		Recorded Liability		Final Expiration	Maximum Future Payments		Recorded Liability
Guarantees	2023	$	4,766	$	37	2023	$	4,774	$	49
Residual value guarantees	2027	914		133		2027	889		135
Total guarantees		$	5,680	$	170		$	5,663	$	184

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 remote.

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 March 31, 2018 ($12.4 billion at December 31, 2017). 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 anticipated by the end of 2018 or first half of 2019, 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.