Commitments, Contingencies and Legal Proceedings

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments, Contingencies and Legal Proceedings [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

16. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

     Fox River — Neenah, Wisconsin

     Background We have significant uncertainties associated with environmental claims arising out of the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) in sediments in the lower Fox River and in the Bay of Green Bay Wisconsin (“Site”). As part of our 1979 acquisition of the Bergstrom Paper Company, we acquired a facility located at the Site (the “Neenah Facility”). The Neenah Facility used wastepaper as a source of fiber. Discharges to the lower Fox River from the Neenah Facility that may have contained PCBs from wastepaper may have occurred from 1954 to the late 1970s. We believe that any PCBs that the Neenah Facility may have discharged into the lower Fox River resulted from the presence of PCBs in NCR^®-brand carbonless copy paper in the wastepaper that was recycled at the Neenah Facility. We closed the Neenah Facility in June 2006.

     The United States, the State of Wisconsin and various state and federal governmental agencies (collectively, the “Governments”), as well as other entities (including local Native American tribes), have found PCBs in sediments in the bed of the Fox River, apparently from a number of sources at municipal and industrial facilities along the upstream and downstream portions of the Site. The Governments have identified manufacturing and recycling of NCR^®-brand carbonless copy paper as the principal source of that contamination.

     The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has divided the lower Fox River and the Bay of Green Bay site into five “operable units” (the “OUs”), including the most upstream (“OU1”) and four downstream reaches of the river and bay (“OU2-5”). OU1 extends from primarily Lake Winnebago to the dam at Appleton, and is comprised of Little Lake Butte des Morts. The Neenah Facility discharged its wastewater into OU1.

     Our liabilities, if any, for this contamination primarily arise under the federal Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”), pursuant to which the Governments have sought to recover “response actions” or “response costs,” which are the costs of studying and cleaning up contamination. Other agencies and natural resource trustee agencies (collectively, the “Trustees”) have sought to recover natural resource damages (“NRDs”), including natural resource damage assessment costs.

     We are one of eight entities that have been formally notified that they are potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) under CERCLA for response costs or NRDs. Others, including the United States and the State of Wisconsin, may also be liable for some or all of the costs of NRD at this Site.

     We are engaged in litigation to allocate costs and NRDs among the parties responsible for this site. The Governments have sought to recover response actions, response costs, and NRDs from us through three principal enforcement actions.

     OU1 CD. On October 1, 2003, the United States and the State of Wisconsin commenced an action captioned United States v. P.H. Glatfelter Co. against us and WTM I Co. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and simultaneously lodged a consent decree (“OU1 CD”) that the court entered on April 12, 2004. Under that OU1 CD, and an amendment dated August 2008, we and WTM I, with a limited fixed contribution from Menasha Corp. and funds provided by the United States from an agreement with others, have implemented the remedy for OU1. We have also resolved claims for all Governmental response costs in OU1 after July 2003 and made a payment on NRDs. That remedy is complete. We have continuing operation and maintenance obligations that we expect to fund from contributions we and WTM I have already made to an escrow account for OU1 under the OU1 CD.

     OU2-5 UAO. In November 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued an administrative order for remedial action (“UAO”) to Appleton Papers Inc. (“API”), CBC Coating, Inc. (formerly known as Riverside Paper Corporation), Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, L.P. (formerly known as Fort James Operating Company), Menasha Corporation, NCR Corporation, Glatfelter, U.S. Paper Mills Corp., and WTM I Company (“WTM”) directing those respondents to implement the remedy in OU2-5. Shortly following issuance of the UAO, API and NCR commenced litigation against us and others, as described below. Accordingly, we have no vehicle for complying with the UAO’s overall requirements other than answering a judgment in the litigation, and we have so informed EPA, but, to minimize disruptions, have paid certain de minimis amounts to EPA for oversight costs under the UAO.

     Government Action. On October 14, 2010, the United States and the State of Wisconsin filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin captioned United States v. NCR Corp. (the “Government Action”) against 12 parties, including us. The Government Action seeks to recover from each of the defendants, jointly and severally, all of the governments’ past costs of response, which approximates $17 million to date, a declaration as to liability for all of the governments’ future costs of response, and compensation for natural resource damages, as well as a declaration as to liability for compliance with the UAO for OU2-5. On March 29, 2011, the United States filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against NCR and API to require NCR and API to implement work in 2011 at a rate described as “full-scale sediment remediation.” On July 5, 2011, that motion was denied; in the course of that ruling, the court found that the governments were not likely to show that API was liable under CERCLA at all. The governments have since filed a renewed motion against NCR alone.

     Whiting Litigation. On January 7, 2008, NCR and API commenced litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin captioned Appleton Papers Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., seeking to reallocate costs and damages allegedly incurred or paid or to be incurred or paid by NCR or API (the “Whiting Litigation”). The case involves allocation claims among the two plaintiffs and 28 defendants including us. We and other defendants counterclaimed against NCR and API. Some of the claims have since been resolved as described below.

     Claims against governments. The Whiting Litigation involves claims by certain parties against federal agencies who are responsible parties for this site. In the Government Action many defendants, including us, asserted counterclaims against the United States and the State of Wisconsin.

     Settlements. Certain parties have resolved their liability to the United States affording them contribution protection. These settlements are embodied in consent decrees. Notably, we entered into the OU1 CD. Also, in a case captioned United States v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., the district court entered two consent decrees under which 13 de minimis defendants in the Whiting Litigation settled with the United States and Wisconsin. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied an appeal by NCR and API on May 4, 2011. Further, Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, has entered into a consent decree resolving its liability for NRDs and a separate consent decree in the Government Action that resolves all of its liabilities except for the downstream portion of the OU4 remedy. Finally, the United States has lodged a consent decree that would resolve the liability of itself and two municipalities and has moved for entry of that decree. We oppose entry of that consent decree, which the district court must approve.

     Cleanup Decisions. The extent of our exposure depends, in large part, on the decisions made by EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“WDNR”) as to how the Site will be cleaned up and the costs and timing of those response actions. The nature of the response actions has been highly controversial. Between 2002 and 2008, the EPA issued records of decision (“RODs”) regarding required remedial actions for the OUs. Some of those RODs have been amended. We contend that the remedy for OU2-5 is arbitrary and capricious. We and others may litigate that issue in the Government Action. If we were to be successful in modifying any existing selected remedy, our exposure could be reduced materially.

     NRD Assessment. We are engaged in disputes as to (i) whether various documents prepared by the Trustees taken together constitute a sufficient NRD assessment under applicable regulations; and (ii)on a number of legal grounds, whether the Trustees may recover from us on the specific NRD claims they have made.

     Past Cost Demand. We are also disputing a demand by EPA that we and six other parties reimburse EPA for approximately $17 million in costs that EPA claims it incurred.

     Cost estimates. Estimates of the Site remediation change over time as we, or others, gain additional data and experience at the Site. In addition, disagreement exists over the likely costs for some of this work. Based upon estimates made by the Governments and independent estimates commissioned by various potentially responsible parties, we have no reason to disagree with the Governments’ assertion that total past and future costs and NRDs at this site may exceed $1 billion and that $1.5 billion is a reasonable “outside estimate.”

     NRDs. Of that amount, the Trustees’ assessment documents claimed that we are jointly and severally responsible for NRDs with a value between $176 million and $333 million. They now claim that this range should be inflated to 2009 dollars and then certain unreimbursed past assessment costs should be added, so that the range of their claim would be $287 million to $423 million. We deny liability for most of these NRDs and believe that even if anyone is liable, that we are not jointly and severally liable for the full amount. Moreover, we believe

that the Trustees may not legally pursue this claim at this late date, as the limitations period for NRD claims is three years from discovery.

     Allocation and Divisibility. We contend that we are not jointly and severally liable for costs or damages arising from the presence of PCBs downstream of OU1. In addition, we contend that NCR or other sources of NCR^®-brand carbonless copy paper that our Neenah Mill recycled bear most, if not all, of the responsibility for costs and damages arising from the presence of PCBs in OU1 and downstream.

     On December 16, 2009, the court granted motions for summary judgment in our favor in the Whiting Litigation holding that neither NCR nor API may seek contribution from us or other recyclers under CERCLA. The Court made no ruling as to any other allocation, the liability of NCR or API to us for costs we have incurred, or our liability to the Governments or Trustees. NCR and API have stated their intention to appeal, but an appeal is not yet timely because the court has not entered a final judgment.

     We also filed counterclaims against NCR and API to recover the costs we have incurred and may later incur and the damages we have paid and may later pay in connection with the Site. Other defendants have similar claims. On February 28, 2011, the district court granted our summary judgment motions on those counterclaims in part and denied them in part. The court granted a declaration that NCR and API are liable to us (and to others) in contribution for 100% of any costs of response (that is, clean up) that we may be required to pay for work in OU2-5 in the future. The court requires further proceedings to decide whether or to what extent NCR and API owe contribution to us and others for costs that we and others incurred in the past and costs that we and others incurred in connection with OU1. The parties disagree as to the court’s ruling with respect to our claim that NCR and API owe contribution to us (and others) for NRDs or natural resource damage assessment costs that we have paid or may be required to pay in the future. On April 12, 2011, the court set the remaining issues on our pending counterclaims under the Superfund statute for trial beginning February 21, 2012.

     Reserves for the Site. As of June 30, 2011, our reserve for our claimed liability at the Site, including our remediation and ongoing monitoring obligations at OU1, our claimed liability for the remediation of the rest of the Site, our claimed liability for NRDs associated with PCB contamination at the Site and all pending, threatened or asserted and unasserted claims against us relating to PCB contamination at the Site totaled $16.6 million. Of our total reserve for the Fox River, $0.3 million is recorded in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets under the caption “Environmental liabilities” and the remainder is recorded under the caption “Other long term liabilities.”

     Although we believe that amounts already funded by us and WTM to implement the OU1 remedy are adequate and no payments have been required since January 2009, there can be no assurance that these amounts will in fact suffice. WTM has filed a bankruptcy petition in the Bankruptcy Court in Richmond; accordingly, there can be no assurance that WTM will be able to fulfill its obligation to pay half of any additional costs, if required.

     We believe that we have strong defenses to liability for further remediation downstream of OU1, including the existence of ample data that indicate that PCBs did not leave OU1 in concentrations that could have caused or contributed to the need for additional cleanup downstream. Others, including the EPA and other PRPs, disagree with us and, as a result, the EPA has issued a UAO to us and to others to perform the additional remedial work, and filed the Government Action seeking, in part, the same relief. NCR and API commenced the Whiting Litigation and joined us and others as defendants, but, to this point, have not prevailed.

     Even if we are not successful in establishing that we have no further remediation liability, we do not believe that we would be allocated a significant percentage share of liability in any equitable allocation of the remediation costs and natural resource damages. The accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include reserves for defense costs for the Whiting Litigation, the Government Action, or any future defense costs related to our involvement at the Site, which could be significant.

     In setting our reserve for the Site, we have assessed our legal defenses, including our successful defenses to the allegations made in the Whiting Litigation, and assumed that we will not bear the entire cost of remediation or damages to the exclusion of other known PRPs at the Site, who are also potentially jointly and severally liable. The existence and ability of other PRPs to participate has also been taken into account in setting our reserve, and is generally based on our evaluation of recent publicly available financial information on certain of the PRPs and any known insurance, indemnity or cost sharing agreements between PRPs and third parties. In addition, our assessment is based upon the magnitude, nature, location and circumstances associated with the various discharges of PCBs to the river and the relationship of those discharges to identified contamination. We will continue to evaluate our exposure and the level of our reserves, including, but not limited to, our potential share of the costs and NRDs, if any, associated with the Site.

     The amount and timing of future expenditures for environmental compliance, cleanup, remediation and personal injury, NRDs and property damage liabilities cannot be ascertained with any certainty due to, among other things, the unknown extent and nature of any contamination, the response actions that may ultimately be required, the availability of remediation equipment, and landfill space, and the number and financial resources of any other PRPs.

     Other Information. The Governments have published studies estimating the amount of PCBs discharged by each identified PRP’s facility to the lower Fox River and Green Bay. These reports estimate the Neenah Facility’s share of the mass of PCBs discharged to be as high as 27%. We do not believe the discharge mass estimates used in these studies are accurate because (a) the studies themselves disclose that they are not accurate and (b) the PCB mass estimates contained in the studies are based on assumptions that are unsupported by existing data on the Site. We believe that the Neenah Facility’s volumetric contribution of PCB mass is significantly lower than the estimates set forth in these studies.

     In any event, based upon the court’s December 16, 2009, and February 28, 2011, rulings in the Whiting Litigation, as well as certain other procedural orders, we continue to believe that an allocation in proportion to mass of PCBs discharged would not constitute an equitable allocation of the potential liability for the contamination at the Fox River. We contend that other factors, such as the location of contamination, the location of discharge, and a party’s role in causing discharge, must be considered in order for the allocation to be equitable.

     We previously entered into interim cost-sharing agreements with six of the other PRPs, which provided for those PRPs to share certain costs relating to scientific studies of PCBs discharged at the Site (“Interim Cost Sharing Agreements”). These Interim Cost Sharing Agreements do not establish the final allocation of remediation costs incurred at the Site. Based upon our evaluation of the Court’s December 16, 2009, and February 28, 2011 rulings in the Whiting Litigation as well as the volume, nature and location of the various discharges of PCBs at the Site and the relationship of those discharges to identified contamination, we believe our allocable share of liability at the Site is less than our share of costs under the Interim Cost Sharing Agreements.

     Range of Reasonably Possible Outcomes. Our analysis of the range of reasonably possible outcomes is derived from all available information, including but not limited to official documents such as RODs, discussions with the United States and other PRPs, as well as legal counsel and engineering consultants. Based on our analysis of the current RODs and cost estimates for work to be performed at the Site, we believe that it is reasonably possible that our costs associated with the Fox River matter may exceed our cost estimates and the aggregate amounts accrued for the Fox River matter by amounts that are insignificant or that could range up to $265 million over an undeterminable period that could range beyond 15 years. We believe that the likelihood of an outcome in the upper end of the monetary range is significantly less than other possible outcomes within the range and that the possibility of an outcome in excess of the upper end of the monetary range is remote. The two summary judgments in our favor in the Whiting Litigation, if sustained on appeal, suggest that outcomes in the upper end of the monetary range have become somewhat less probable, while increases in cost estimates for some of the work may make an outcome in the upper end of the range more likely.

     Summary. Our current assessment is that we will be able to manage this environmental matter without a long-term, material adverse impact on the Company. This matter could, however, at any particular time or for any particular year or years, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and/or results of operations or could result in a default under our debt covenants. Moreover, there can be no assurance that our reserves will be adequate to provide for future obligations related to this matter, that our share of costs and/or damages will not exceed our available resources, or that such obligations will not have a long-term, material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. Should a court grant the United States or the State of Wisconsin relief which requires us either to perform directly or to contribute significant amounts towards remedial action downstream of OU1 or to natural resource damages, those developments could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and results of operations and might result in a default under our loan covenants.