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, 2018, the Company had accrued obligations of $820 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $156 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, 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.

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 were included in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of income.

The following table summarizes the activity in the Company's accrued obligations for environmental matters for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017:



Accrued Obligations for Environmental Matters	2018			2017
In millions	2018			2017
Balance at Jan 1	$	878		$	909
Accrual adjustment	175			172
Payments against reserve	(209		)	(220		)
Foreign currency impact	(24		)	17
Balance at Dec 31	$	820		$	878

The amounts charged to income on a pretax basis related to environmental remediation totaled $174 million in 2018, $171 million in 2017 and $504 million in 2016. Capital expenditures for environmental protection were $76 million in 2018, $79 million in 2017 and $66 million in 2016.

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. In 2016, final regulatory approval was received from the MDEQ for the City of Midland and Dow is continuing the long term monitoring requirements of the Remedial Action Plan.

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 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 three 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 have been negotiating orders separate from the AOC that obligate the Company to perform remedial actions under the scope of work of the AOC. The Company and the EPA have entered into four separate orders to perform limited remedial actions in five of the eight 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 ("DOJ"), 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, 2018, the accrual for these off-site matters was $95 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $820 million). At December 31, 2017, the Company had an accrual for these off-site matters of $83 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $878 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 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

Based on a study completed in January 2003 by Ankura Consulting Group, LLC ("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 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, 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.

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 was 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.

In October 2017, Union Carbide requested Ankura to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity (including asbestos-related defense and processing costs) and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2016 study. In response to that request, Ankura reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2017. In December 2017, Ankura stated that an update of its December 2016 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 (including asbestos-related defense and processing costs) and Ankura's response, Union Carbide determined that no change to the accrual was required. At December 31, 2017, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, including future asbestos-related defense and processing costs, was $1,369 million, and approximately 16 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 84 percent related to future claims.

In October 2018, Union Carbide requested Ankura to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity (including asbestos-related defense and processing costs) and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2016 study. In response to that request, Ankura reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2018. The resulting study, completed by Ankura in December 2018, provided estimates for the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, including future defense and processing costs, through the terminal year of 2049. Based on the study completed in December 2018 by Ankura, and Union Carbide's own review, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required. At December 31, 2018, Union Carbide's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was $1,260 million, 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.

Urethane Matters

Class Action Lawsuit

On February 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a subpoena from the 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 ("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 United States Supreme Court, seeking judicial review and requesting that it correct fundamental errors in the Court of Appeals decision. 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. On July 29, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted final approval of the settlement. The settlement resolved 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. 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. 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 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. 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. The case is now concluded.

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 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. 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.

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 issued 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. DAS appealed the Federal District Court's decision. 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 19, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued a mandate denying DAS's request to stay the arbitral award pending judicial review by the United States Supreme Court. 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. The Company continues to believe that the arbitral award is fundamentally flawed because, among other things, it allowed for the enforcement of invalid patents. The arbitral award and subsequent related judicial decisions 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. 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. 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.

Dow and Rockwell continued to litigate this matter in the District Court and in the United States Supreme Court following the appellate court decision. 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. The District Court granted preliminary approval to the class settlement on August 5, 2016. 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

Introduction

In 1995, Dow Silicones, then a 50:50 joint venture between Dow and 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”). Under the Plan, total payments committed by Dow Silicones 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 $3,876 million undiscounted at December 31, 2018). Of this amount, no more than $400 million NPV determined as of the Effective Date can be used to fund 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 December 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 $118 million.

On June 1, 2016, as part of the ownership restructure of Dow Silicones 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 Silicones (prior to its bankruptcy filing). While Dow Silicones withdrew from the RSP, many of the benefit categories and payment levels in Dow Silicones 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 the fourth quarter of 2016, with the assistance of a third party consultant ("consultant"), Dow Silicones updated its estimate of its 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 Silicones silicone gel), a decrease resulting from the passage of time, decreased claim filing activity and administrative costs compared with the previous estimate, and an increase in investment income resulting from insurance proceeds. Based on the consultant's updated estimate and Dow Silicones own review of claim filing activity, Dow Silicones determined that an adjustment to the Implant Liability was required. Accordingly, Dow Silicones decreased its Implant Liability in the fourth quarter of 2016 by $27 million, which was included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income. At December 31, 2018, the Implant Liability was $263 million, of which $111 million was included in “Accrued and other current liabilities” and $152 million was included in "Other noncurrent obligations" in the consolidated balance sheets. At December 31, 2017, the Implant Liability was $263 million, 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 the revised 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 $2,114 million at December 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.

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 the Commercial Creditors to recover fees, costs, and expenses where allowed by relevant loan agreements. 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. On May 10, 2017, the District Court entered a stipulated order resolving pending discovery motions and established a discovery schedule for the Commercial Creditors matter. As a result, Dow Silicones and its third party consultants conducted further analysis of the Commercial Creditors claims and defenses. This analysis indicated the estimated remaining liability to the Commercial Creditors to be within a range of $77 million to $260 million. No single amount within the range appears to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range. Therefore, Dow Silicones recorded the minimum liability within the range, which resulted in a decrease to the Commercial Creditor liability of $33 million in the second quarter of 2017, which was included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income. At December 31, 2018, the liability related to Dow Silicones' potential obligation to pay additional interest to the Commercial Creditors in the Chapter 11 Proceeding was $82 million ($78 million at December 31, 2017) 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 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. Indemnified losses are capped at (1) $1 billion between May 31, 2018 and May 31, 2023, and (2) no recoveries are permitted after May 31, 2023. No indemnification assets were recorded at December 31, 2018 or 2017.

Summary

The amounts recorded by Dow Silicones 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 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

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 (the "'705 Patent"). Nova counterclaimed on the grounds of invalidity and non-infringement. In accordance with Canadian practice, the suit was bifurcated into a merits phase, followed by a damages phase. Following trial in the merits phase, in May 2014 the Federal Court ruled that the Company's '705 Patent was valid and infringed by Nova. Nova appealed to the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal, which affirmed the Federal Court decision in August 2016. Nova then sought leave to appeal its loss to the Supreme Court of Canada, which dismissed Nova’s petition in April 2017. As a result, Nova has exhausted all appeal rights on the merits, and it is undisputed that Nova owes Dow the profits it earned from its infringing sales as determined in the trial for the damages phase.

On April 19, 2017, the Federal Court issued a Public Judgment in the damages phase, which detailed its conclusions on how to calculate the profits to be awarded to Dow. Dow and Nova submitted their respective calculations of the damages to the Federal Court in May 2017. 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. As a result of these actions and in accordance with ASC 450-30 "Gain Contingencies," the Company recorded a $160 million pretax gain in the second quarter of 2017 of which $137 million was included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" and $23 million was included in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" in the consolidated statements of income. At December 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.

Purchase Commitments

The Company has outstanding purchase commitments and various commitments for take-or-pay or throughput agreements. The Company was not aware of any purchase commitments that were negotiated as part of a financing arrangement for the facilities that will provide the contracted goods or services or for the costs related to those goods or services at December 31, 2018 and 2017.

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	Dec 31, 2018					Dec 31, 2017
In millions	Final Expiration	Maximum Future Payments		Recorded Liability		Final Expiration	Maximum Future Payments		Recorded Liability
Guarantees	2023	$	4,523	$	25	2023	$	4,774	$	49
Residual value guarantees	2028	885		130		2027	889		135
Total guarantees		$	5,408	$	155		$	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 less than 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 $11.7 billion of Total Project Financing outstanding at December 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 $4.2 billion when the project financing is fully drawn. Sadara successfully completed an extensive operational testing program in December 2018, however, the Guarantees will be released upon the satisfactory fulfillment of certain project completion conditions, which is expected by the middle 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.

Operating Leases

The Company routinely leases premises for use as sales and administrative offices, warehouses and tanks for product storage, motor vehicles, railcars, computers, office machines and equipment. In addition, the Company leases aircraft in the United States. The terms for these leased assets vary depending on the lease agreement. Some leases contain renewal provisions, purchase options and escalation clauses.

Rental expenses under leases, net of sublease rental income, were $771 million in 2018, $757 million in 2017 and $661 million in 2016. Future minimum payments under leases with remaining non-cancelable terms in excess of one year are as follows:



Minimum Lease Commitments at Dec 31, 2018
In millions
2019	$	412
2020	369
2021	328
2022	297
2023	253
2024 and thereafter	978
Total	$	2,637

Asset Retirement Obligations

Dow has 164 manufacturing sites in 35 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, Columbia, China, Japan, United Arab Emirates and Europe; and capping activities at landfill sites in the United States, Canada and Brazil. 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, Columbia, China 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 $24 million at December 31, 2018 ($20 million at December 31, 2017).

The following table shows changes in the aggregate carrying amount of the Company’s asset retirement obligations for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017:



Asset Retirement Obligations	2018			2017
In millions	2018			2017
Balance at Jan 1	$	104		$	110
Additional accruals	10			3
Liabilities settled	(4		)	(9		)
Accretion expense	3			5
Revisions in estimated cash flows	—			(9		)
Other	1			4
Balance at Dec 31	$	114		$	104

The discount rate used to calculate the Company’s asset retirement obligations at December 31, 2018, was 3.54 percent (2.04 percent at December 31, 2017). 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 37 underground storage wells and 128 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.