17.	Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are identified as a “potentially responsible party” (PRP) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of

1980

(CERCLA) and/or similar state laws that impose liability without regard to fault for costs and damages relating to the investigation and clean-up of contamination resulting from releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances. We are also subject to similar laws in some of the countries where our facilities are located. Our environmental, health, and safety department monitors compliance with applicable laws on a global basis.

October 30, 2009,

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) designated Syracuse China Company (“Syracuse China”), our wholly-owned subsidiary, as

one

eight

PRPs with respect to the Lower Ley Creek sub-site of the Onondaga Lake Superfund site located near the ceramic dinnerware manufacturing facility that Syracuse China operated from

1995

2009

in Syracuse, New York. As a PRP, we

may

be required to pay a share of the costs of investigation and remediation of the Lower Ley Creek sub-site.

U.S. EPA has completed its Remedial Investigation (RI), Feasibility Study (FS), Risk Assessment (RA) and Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP). U.S. EPA issued its Record of Decision (RoD) on

September 30, 2014.

The RoD indicates that U.S. EPA’s estimate of the undiscounted cost of remediation ranges between approximately

$17.0

million (assuming local disposal of contaminated sediments is feasible) and approximately

$24.8

million (assuming local disposal is

not

feasible). However, the RoD acknowledges that the final cost of the cleanup will depend upon the actual volume of contaminated material, the degree to which it is contaminated, and where the excavated soil and sediment is properly disposed. In connection with the General Motors Corporation (“GM”) bankruptcy, U.S. EPA recovered

$22.0

million from Motors Liquidation Company (MLC), the successor to GM. If the cleanup costs do

not

exceed the amount recovered by U.S. EPA from MLC, Syracuse China

may

suffer

loss. If and to the extent the cleanup costs exceed the amount recovered by U.S. EPA from MLC, it is

not

yet known whether other PRPs will be added to the current group of PRPs or how any excess costs

may

be allocated among the PRPs.

March 3, 2015,

the EPA issued to the PRPs notices and requests to negotiate performance of the remedial design (RD) work. The notices contemplate that any agreement to perform the RD work would be memorialized in an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC). On

July 14, 2016,

the PRPs entered into an AOC to perform the RD work. The EPA and PRPs anticipate that the RD work will produce additional information from which the feasibility of a local disposal option and the cleanup costs can be better determined. The EPA has declined to advance the GM Settlement Funds for the RD work, instead conditioning use of those funds to reimburse for the RD work upon the successful completion of the RD work and the finalization of an AOC to perform the remedial action work.

In connection with the above proceedings relating to the Lower Ley Creek sub-site, an estimated environmental liability of

$0.7

million and a recoverable amount of

$0.4

million in other assets have been recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets at

December 31, 2019

and

2018.

Immaterial amounts have been recorded in cost of sales in the Consolidated Statements of Operations during

2019

and

2018.

Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, we believe that these environmental proceedings will

not

have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

October 26, 2018,

Revitalizing Auto Communities Environmental Response Trust (“RACER Trust”) and RACER Properties LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against our wholly-owned subsidiaries Syracuse China Company and Libbey Glass Inc. (collectively, “SCC”) and more than

other companies. RACER Properties LLC is the owner of a former GM manufacturing facility located in Onondaga County, New York, and the RACER Trust, established pursuant to a

2010

Environmental Response Trust Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (the

“2010

Trust Consent Decree”), was created to clean up and reposition for development certain properties owned by the former GM. The complaint alleges that SCC and the other defendants are jointly and severally liable, along with the plaintiffs, for the remediation of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) and certain other hazardous substances in soils and sediments in Upper Ley Creek between Town Line Road and the Route

Bridge in Onondaga County, New York (the “Upper Ley Creek sub-site”). The Upper Ley Creek sub-site is located immediately upstream of the Lower Ley Creek sub-site.

Pursuant to a

2015

Consent Order with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”), the RACER Trust committed to undertake certain remedial work with respect to the Upper Ley Creek sub-site utilizing funds set aside for this purpose by the Bankruptcy Court. According to the complaint, the NYSDEC has directed the RACER Trust to investigate a

-acre area of land on the north side of Upper Ley Creek that is allegedly outside of the original geographic scope of the remedial work contemplated by the

2010

Trust Consent Decree. The complaint alleges that if additional remediation in that area becomes necessary, the remediation budget for the Upper Ley Creek sub-site could increase to as much as approximately

$93.5

million.

If SCC is determined to be a PRP for the Upper Ley Creek sub-site, SCC

may

be required to pay a share of the costs of investigation and remediation of the Upper Ley Creek sub-site. SCC and several other defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint. That motion is currently awaiting a decision from the District Court. We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding, and the amount that SCC

may

ultimately be required to pay is currently

not

reasonably estimable.

To the extent that Syracuse China has a liability with respect to the Lower Ley Creek sub-site, including without limitation costs to fund the RD work, or with respect to the Upper Ley Creek sub-site, and to the extent the liability arose prior to our

1995

acquisition of the Syracuse China assets, the liability would be subject to the indemnification provisions contained in the Asset Purchase Agreement between the Company and The Pfaltzgraff Co. (now known as TPC-York, Inc. (“TPC York”)) and certain of its subsidiaries. Accordingly, Syracuse China has notified TPC York of its claims for indemnification under the Asset Purchase Agreement. Such costs will be shared up to an aggregate cost of

$7.5

million. Of this amount, the Company already has incurred

$0.5

million and TPC York remains liable for up to an additional

$2.8

million. TPC York already has reimbursed the Company for

$1.4

million.

November 12, 2018,

we received notice from the BKK Working Group that Libbey Glass Inc. is a PRP with respect to waste disposal at a former landfill (the “BKK Landfill”) in West Covina, California. The BKK Working Group consists of approximately

entities who are cooperating with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to investigate and remediate the BKK Landfill. The BKK Working Group alleges that Libbey Glass Inc., along with over

500

other entities, disposed of manifested waste at the landfill between

1963

and

1984

and therefore

may

be liable for a portion of the costs incurred. Libbey Glass Inc. was named as a defendant in the related lawsuit,

BKK Working Group v.

1700

Santa Fe Ltd et al

, Case

#2:18

-cv-

05810

-MWF-PLA, but was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement on

July 12, 2019.

That tolling agreement tolled all claims against Libbey until

July 2, 2021.

The underlying case is currently stayed until

July 20, 2020.

Accordingly, at this time we are evaluating our legal options and have

not

formed an opinion that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or the range of any potential loss.

Income Taxes

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to examination by various countries’ tax authorities. These examinations

may

lead to proposed or assessed adjustments to our taxes. Please refer to note 7, Income Taxes, for a detailed discussion on tax contingencies.