Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Guarantees, Commitments, and Contingencies

Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies

We continue to monitor the conditions that are subject to guarantees and indemnifications to identify whether a liability must be recognized in our financial statements.

The following table provides the estimated undiscounted amount of potential future payments for each major group of guarantees at December 31, 2019. These guarantees arise during the ordinary course of business from relationships with customers and nonconsolidated affiliates. Non-performance by the guaranteed party triggers the obligation requiring us to make payments to the beneficiary of the guarantee. Based on our experience these types of guarantees have not had a material effect on our consolidated financial position or on our liquidity. Our expectation is that future payment or performance related to the non-performance of others is considered unlikely.

(in Millions)
Guarantees:
Guarantees of vendor financing - short term (1)	$	75.7
Other debt guarantees (2)	2.1
Total	$	77.8

____________________

(1)Represents guarantees to financial institutions on behalf of certain customers for their seasonal borrowing. The short-term amount is recorded as “Guarantees of vendor financing” on the consolidated balance sheets.

(2)These guarantees represent support provided to third-party banks for credit extended to various customers and nonconsolidated affiliates. The liability for the guarantees is recorded at an amount that approximates fair value (i.e. representing the stand-ready obligation) based on our historical collection experience and a current assessment of credit exposure. We believe the fair value of these guarantees is immaterial. The majority of these guarantees have an expiration date of less than one year.

Excluded from the chart above are parent-company guarantees we provide to lending institutions that extend credit to our foreign subsidiaries. Since these guarantees are provided for consolidated subsidiaries, the consolidated financial position is not affected by the issuance of these guarantees. Also excluded from the chart, in connection with our property and asset sales and divestitures, we have agreed to indemnify the buyer for certain liabilities, including environmental contamination and taxes that occurred prior to the date of sale or provided guarantees to third parties relating to certain contracts assumed by the buyer. Our indemnification or guarantee obligations with respect to certain liabilities may be indefinite as to duration and may or may not be subject to a deductible, minimum claim amount or cap. As such, it is not possible for us to predict the likelihood that a claim will be made or to make a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential loss or range of loss. If triggered, we may be able to recover some of the indemnity payments from third parties. Therefore, we have not recorded any specific liabilities for these guarantees. For certain obligations related to our divestitures for which we can make a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential loss or range of loss and is probable, a liability in those instances has been recorded.

Commitments

Purchase Obligations

Our minimum commitments under our take-or-pay purchase obligations associated with the sourcing of materials and energy total approximately $1,126 million. Since the majority of our minimum obligations under these contracts are over the life of the contract on a year-by-year basis, we are unable to determine the periods in which these obligations could be payable under these contracts. However, we intend to fulfill the obligations associated with these contracts through our purchases associated with the normal course of business.

Contingencies

Livent Corporation class action. On May 13, 2019, purported stockholders of our former subsidiary Livent Corporation (“Livent”) filed a putative class action complaint in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, in connection with Livent’s October 2018 initial public offering (the “Livent IPO”). The complaint in this case, Plymouth County Retirement Association v. Livent Corp., et al., named as defendants Livent, certain of its current and former executives and directors, FMC Corporation, and underwriters involved in the Livent IPO (“Defendants”). The complaint alleges generally that the offering documents for the Livent IPO failed to adequately disclose certain information related to Livent’s business and prospects. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Livent common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Livent IPO offering documents. On July 2, 2019, defendants moved to stay the Plymouth County action, in favor of two similar putative class actions relating to the Livent IPO, in which FMC had not been named as a defendant, which are pending in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On July 18, 2019, a separate state action was filed against the same defendants in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Bizzaria v. Livent Corp., et al. On July 26, 2019, Plymouth County filed an amended complaint in its state court case. On September 23, 2019, the actions were consolidated under the caption In re Livent Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 190501229. On October 11, 2019, defendants filed preliminary objections seeking to dismiss the case in its entirety. On October 22, 2019, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to stay the case, but granted a separate motion of the defendants to stay all discovery.

Separately, on October 18, 2019, purported stockholders of Livent amended a putative class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to add FMC Corporation as a defendant. The operative complaint in that case, Bisser Nikolov v. Livent Corp., et al. makes similar substantive allegations as the state court case, including alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Livent common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Livent IPO offering documents. Pursuant to a stipulated scheduling order, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Nikolov case on November 18, 2019. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 30, 2019, and Defendants shall have 30 days to file a reply in further support of a motion to dismiss. All discovery is stayed in this case pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss.

Livent has agreed to defend and indemnify FMC with regard to these cases. FMC is cooperating with Livent and other defendants to defend the litigation.

Competition / antitrust litigation related to the discontinued FMC Peroxygens segment. We are subject to actions brought by private plaintiffs relating to alleged violations of European and Canadian competition and antitrust laws, as further described below.

European competition action. Multiple European purchasers of hydrogen peroxide who claim to have been harmed as a result of alleged violations of European competition law by hydrogen peroxide producers assigned their legal claims to a single entity formed by a law firm. The single entity then filed a lawsuit in Germany in March 2009 against European producers, including our wholly-owned Spanish subsidiary, Foret. An initial hearing was held during the first quarter of 2011, at which time case management issues were discussed. At a subsequent hearing in October 2011, the Court indicated that it was considering seeking guidance from the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) as to whether the German courts have jurisdiction over these claims. After submission of written comments on this issue by the parties, on March 1, 2012, the judge announced that she would refer the jurisdictional issues to the ECJ, which she did on April 29, 2013. On May 21, 2015, the ECJ issued its decision, upholding the jurisdiction of the German court. The case is now back before the German judge. We filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings in September 2015. We anticipate a response by the court sometime in 2020. Since the case is in the preliminary stages and is based on a novel procedure - namely the attempt to create a cross-border “class action” which is not a recognized proceeding under EU or German law - we are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of our potential exposure of loss at this time. A settlement agreement is currently being negotiated by the parties but the terms have not yet been finalized. If the matter cannot be resolved, we will defend the case vigorously.

Canadian antitrust actions. FMC signed a settlement agreement on September 27, 2018, providing for a payment of CAD 3.25 million ($2.5 million) to the plaintiffs. The settlement payment was made in the fourth quarter of 2018 and was recorded within "Discontinued operations, net of income taxes" on the consolidated statements of income (loss). The Ontario Superior Court of Justice subsequently approved the settlement and dismissed the action on January 18, 2019, which fully and finally resolved the Canadian litigation.

Asbestos claims. Like hundreds of other industrial companies, we have been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of FMC or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued operations.

We intend to continue managing these asbestos-related cases in accordance with our historical experience. We have established a reserve for this litigation within our discontinued operations and believe that any exposure of a loss in excess of the established reserve cannot be reasonably estimated. Our experience has been that the overall trends in asbestos litigation have changed over time. Over the last several years, we have seen changes in the jurisdictions where claims against FMC are being filed and changes in the mix of products named in the various claims. Because these claim trends have yet to form a predictable pattern, we are presently unable to reasonably estimate our asbestos liability with respect to claims that may be filed in the future.

Other contingent liabilities. In addition to the matters disclosed above, we have certain other contingent liabilities arising from litigation, claims, products we have sold, guarantees or warranties we have made, contracts we have entered into, indemnities we have provided, and other commitments or obligations incident to the ordinary course of business. In Brazil, we are subject to claims from various governmental agencies regarding alleged additional indirect (non-income) taxes or duties as well as product liability matters and labor cases related to our operations. These disputes take many years to resolve as the matters move through administrative or judicial courts. We have provided reserves for such Brazilian matters that we consider probable and for which a reasonable estimate of the obligation can be made in the amount of $4.9 million and $1.7 million as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. The aggregate estimated reasonably possible loss contingencies related to such Brazilian matters exceed amounts accrued by approximately $90 million at December 31, 2019. This reasonably possible estimate is based upon information available as of the date of the filing and the actual future losses may be higher given the uncertainties regarding the ultimate decision by administrative or judicial authorities in Brazil. Regarding other contingencies arising from operations, some of these contingencies are known - for example pending product liability litigation or claims - but are so preliminary that the merits cannot be determined, or if more advanced, are not deemed material based on current knowledge. Some contingencies are unknown - for example, claims with respect to which we have no notice or claims which may arise in the future, resulting from products we have sold, guarantees or warranties we have made, or indemnities we have provided. Therefore, we are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of our potential exposure of loss for these contingencies, either individually or in the aggregate, at this time. Based on information currently available and established reserves, we have no reason to believe that the ultimate resolution of our known contingencies, including the matters described in this Note, will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. However, there can be no assurance that the outcome of these contingencies will be favorable, and adverse results in certain of these contingencies could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations in any one reporting period, or liquidity.

See Note 12 for the Pocatello Tribal litigation, Middleport litigation, and Portland Harbor site for legal proceedings associated with our environmental contingencies.