12. Contingencies

Litigation The following is a discussion of any material developments in previously reported contingencies and any other material matters that have arisen since the filing of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Tronox Litigation On April 3, 2014, Anadarko and Kerr-McGee Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all claims asserted by Tronox Incorporated (Tronox) and certain of its affiliates, including claims for actual and constructive fraudulent conveyance (Adversary Proceeding), for $5.15 billion. In addition, the Company agreed to pay interest on that amount from April 3, 2014, through the payment of the settlement. In January 2015, the Company paid $5.2 billion after the settlement agreement became effective. For additional disclosure of the Tronox Adversary Proceeding, see Note 17—Contingencies—Tronox Litigation in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Anadarko recognized Tronox-related contingent losses of $850 million in the fourth quarter of 2013 and $4.3 billion in the first quarter of 2014. In addition, Anadarko recognized settlement-related interest expense, included in Tronox-related contingent loss in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Income, of $60 million during the year ended December 31, 2014, and $5 million during the first quarter of 2015. For information on the tax effects of the settlement agreement, see Note 13—Income Taxes.

12. Contingencies (Continued)

Deepwater Horizon Events In April 2010, the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico blew out and an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, resulting in an oil spill. The well was operated by BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BP) and Anadarko held a 25% nonoperated interest. In October 2011, the Company and BP entered into a settlement agreement relating to the Deepwater Horizon events (Settlement Agreement). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against all claims and damages arising under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), claims for natural resource damages (NRD) and assessment costs, and any claims arising under the Operating Agreement with BP. This indemnification is guaranteed by BP Corporation North America Inc. (BPCNA) and, in the event that the net worth of BPCNA declines below an agreed-upon amount, BP p.l.c. has agreed to become the sole guarantor. Under the Settlement Agreement, BP does not indemnify the Company against penalties and fines, punitive damages, shareholder derivative or securities laws claims, or certain other claims. The Company has not recorded a liability for any costs that are subject to indemnification by BP. For additional disclosure of the Deepwater Horizon events, the Company’s Settlement Agreement with BP, environmental claims under OPA, NRD claims, potential penalties and fines, and civil litigation, see Note 17—Contingencies—Deepwater Horizon Events in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Penalties and Fines In December 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the United States, filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans, Louisiana (Louisiana District Court) against several parties, including the Company, seeking an assessment of civil penalties under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in an amount to be determined by the Louisiana District Court. In February 2012, the Louisiana District Court entered a declaratory judgment that, as a partial owner of the Macondo well, Anadarko is liable for civil penalties under Section 311 of the CWA. The declaratory judgment was affirmed in June 2014 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit). In March 2015, Anadarko filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the Fifth Circuit’s decision, which was denied in June 2015. The declaratory judgment addresses liability only, and does not address the amount of any civil penalty. The assessment of a civil penalty against Anadarko will be determined by the Louisiana District Court upon its ruling in the penalty phase of trial discussed below under Civil Litigation Damage Claims.

Applicable accounting guidance requires the Company to accrue a liability if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. The Louisiana District Court’s declaratory judgment in February 2012 satisfies the requirement that a liability arising from the future assessment of a civil penalty against Anadarko is probable. In an effort to resolve this matter, the Company made a settlement offer to the DOJ in July 2014 of $90 million and recorded a contingent liability for this amount at June 30, 2014. The Company subsequently engaged in further discussions regarding settlement, but the parties have not been able to reach agreement on either the amount of, or the terms and conditions governing, a settlement. The Company’s settlement offer of $90 million remains outstanding and the Company remains open to resolving the matter through settlement discussions. The Company believes that $90 million under a settlement scenario is a better estimate of loss at this time than any other amount. Based on the above accounting guidance, the Company’s contingent liability for CWA penalties and fines remains $90 million at September 30, 2015. However, the Company may ultimately incur a liability related to CWA penalties in excess of the current accrued liability.

12. Contingencies (Continued)

The actual amount of a CWA penalty is subject to uncertainty, including whether the Company will be able to reach a settlement with the DOJ or will await the Louisiana District Court’s opinion in the penalty phase trial. The CWA sets forth subjective criteria to be considered by the court in assessing the magnitude of any CWA penalty: economic benefit to the violator; degree of culpability; seriousness of the violation; the nature, extent, and degree of success of any efforts to minimize or mitigate the effects of the discharge; prior history of violations; other penalties for the same incident; economic impact of the penalty on the violator; and other matters as justice may require. For the Phase I and II trials (defined in Civil Litigation Damage Claims below) and again for the penalty phase trial in January 2015, the Louisiana District Court ruled that no evidence of Anadarko’s alleged culpability or fault could be presented. In addition, in its Phase I Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Phase I Findings and Conclusions), the Louisiana District Court did not allocate any fault to Anadarko. Given the subjective nature of the CWA criteria used to determine penalty assessments and the Louisiana District Court’s prior rulings related to culpability and allocation of fault, the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any such penalty to be assessed or determine a reasonable range of potential loss if the matter is resolved by the Louisiana District Court following trial. Furthermore, BP’s July 2015 announcement of a settlement agreement in principle with the DOJ and certain states regarding essentially all of the outstanding claims against BP related to the Deepwater Horizon event, including $5.5 billion to resolve CWA penalties, and the lodging of a proposed consent decree with the Louisiana District Court in October 2015, does not affect the Company’s current conclusion concerning its ability to estimate potential penalties and fines. The Company had no involvement with the settlement and has no information concerning the rationale for allocating certain settlement proceeds as CWA penalties. The lodged consent decree also provides no explanation as to why the United States and the various states and local government entities consider the penalty amount to be fair and reasonable.

Although the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any such penalty to be assessed or determine a reasonable range of potential loss, the Company believes the following factors should limit the magnitude of any CWA penalties assessed:


•	the Company’s lack of direct operational involvement in the event as a non-operator,


•	the Louisiana District Court’s rulings excluding any evidence of Anadarko’s alleged culpability or fault, and


•	the Phase I Findings and Conclusions that did not allocate any fault to Anadarko.

In addition, the Company is not aware that any court has ever assessed a substantial CWA penalty against a party who has been found by a court to bear no fault for a spill.

Events or factors that could assist the Company in estimating the amount of settlement or potential civil penalty or a range of potential loss related to such penalty include a ruling by the Louisiana District Court or substantive settlement negotiations between the Company and the DOJ.

As discussed below, numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company. Certain state and local governments appealed, or provided indication of a likely appeal of, the Louisiana District Court’s decision that only federal law, and not state law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. These appeals will be dismissed as part of BP’s settlement with the United States and various states and local government entities, provided that the consent decree is ultimately approved by the Louisiana District Court.

12. Contingencies (Continued)

Civil Litigation Damage Claims Numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been filed against BP and other parties, including the Company. This litigation has been consolidated into a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) action pending before Judge Carl Barbier in the Louisiana District Court.

The first phase of the trial in the MDL (Phase I) commenced in February 2013. The issues tried in Phase I included the cause of the blowout and all related events leading up to April 22, 2010, the date the Deepwater Horizon sank, as well as allocation of fault. In September 2014, the Louisiana District Court issued its Phase I Findings and Conclusions. The Louisiana District Court found that BP and BP America Production Company (BPAP), Transocean Ltd. (Transocean), and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton), but not Anadarko, are each liable under general maritime law for the blowout, explosion, and oil spill. The court determined that BP’s and BPAP’s conduct was reckless and that both Transocean’s and Halliburton’s conduct was negligent. The Louisiana District Court apportioned 67% of the fault to BP and BPAP, 30% to Transocean, and 3% to Halliburton. No fault was allocated to Anadarko. The plaintiffs and BP have appealed the Phase I Findings and Conclusions.

The second phase of trial (Phase II) began in September 2013. The issues tried in Phase II included spill-source control and quantification of the spill for the period from April 20, 2010, until the well was capped. In January 2015, the Louisiana District Court issued its Phase II Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Phase II Findings and Conclusions). The Louisiana District Court found that, for purposes of calculating the maximum possible civil penalty under the CWA, 3.19 million barrels of oil were discharged into the Gulf of Mexico. The United States has appealed the Phase II Findings and Conclusions.

The penalty phase of the trial began in January 2015. In March 2014, the Louisiana District Court ruled that no evidence of Anadarko’s alleged culpability or fault could be presented during the penalty phase trial. The parties rested their case in February 2015, post-trial briefing concluded in April 2015, and the matter is pending before the Louisiana District Court. The trial included Anadarko, BP, and the United States. As discussed above, in October 2015, a proposed consent decree was lodged with the Louisiana District Court that sets out a global settlement between (i) BP and (ii) the United States, certain states and local government entities resolving various claims for penalties and fines, including civil claims under the CWA and natural resources damage claims under OPA.

Remaining Liability Outlook In addition to the assessment of civil penalties under the CWA discussed above, it is possible that the Company may recognize additional Deepwater Horizon event-related liabilities for potential penalties and fines and certain other claims not covered by the indemnification provisions of the Settlement Agreement.

Although the Company is fully indemnified by BP against OPA damage claims, NRD claims and assessment costs, and certain other potential liabilities, the Company may be required to recognize a liability for these amounts in advance of or in connection with recognizing a receivable from BP for the related indemnity payment. In all circumstances, however, the Company expects that any additional indemnified liability that may be recognized by the Company will be subsequently recovered from BP itself or through the guarantees of BPCNA or BP p.l.c.

The Company will continue to monitor the MDL and other legal proceedings discussed above related to the Deepwater Horizon events. The Company cannot predict the nature of additional evidence that may be discovered during the course of legal proceedings or the timing of completion of any legal proceedings.

Other Litigation In December 2008, Anadarko sold its interest in the Peregrino heavy-oil field offshore Brazil. The Company is currently litigating a dispute with the Brazilian tax authorities regarding the tax rate applicable to the transaction. In August 2013, following a determination by an administrative court in a related matter that the amount of tax in dispute was not calculated properly, the Company filed a petition requesting the withdrawal of a portion of the judicial deposit to the extent it exceeds the amount of tax currently in dispute, and any interest on such amount. In April 2015, the Company’s petition was denied. For additional disclosure on this matter, see Note 17—Contingencies—Other Litigation in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company believes that it will more likely than not prevail in Brazilian courts. Therefore, no tax liability has been recorded for Peregrino divestiture-related litigation at September 30, 2015.