Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Contingencies
Contingencies	18. Contingencies Ball is subject to numerous lawsuits, claims or proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of business, including actions related to: product liability, personal injury, the use and performance of company products; warranty matters; patent, trademark or other intellectual property infringement; contractual liability, the conduct of the company’s business; tax reporting in domestic and foreign jurisdictions; workplace safety, and environmental and other matters. The company has also been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at several waste disposal sites under U.S. federal and related state environmental statutes and regulations and may have joint and several liability for any investigation and remediation costs incurred with respect to such sites. In addition, we have received claims alleging that employees in certain plants have suffered damages due to exposure to alleged workplace hazards. Some of these lawsuits, claims and proceedings involve substantial amounts, including as described below, and some of the environmental proceedings involve potential monetary costs or sanctions that may be material. Ball has denied liability with respect to many of these lawsuits, claims and proceedings and is vigorously defending such lawsuits, claims and proceedings. The company carries various forms of commercial, property and casualty and other forms of insurance; however, such insurance may not be applicable or adequate to cover the costs associated with a judgment against Ball with respect to these lawsuits, claims and proceedings. The company estimates that potential liabilities for all currently known and estimable environmental matters are approximately $45 million in the aggregate and have been included in other current liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities at September 30, 2017. As previously reported, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) considers the company a PRP with respect to the Lowry Landfill site located east of Denver, Colorado. In 1992, the company was served with a lawsuit filed by the City and County of Denver (Denver) and Waste Management of Colorado, Inc., seeking contributions from the company and approximately 38 other companies. The company filed its answer denying the allegations of the complaint. Subsequently in 1992, the company was served with a third-party complaint filed by S.W. Shattuck Chemical Company, Inc., seeking contribution from the company and other companies for the costs associated with cleaning up the Lowry Landfill. The company denied the allegations of the complaint. Also in 1992, Ball entered into a settlement and indemnification agreement with Chemical Waste Management, Inc., and Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. (collectively Waste Management) and Denver pursuant to which Waste Management and Denver dismissed their lawsuit against the company, and Waste Management agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the company from claims and lawsuits brought by governmental agencies and other parties relating to actions seeking contributions or remedial costs from the company for the clean-up of the site. Waste Management, Inc., has agreed to guarantee the obligations of Waste Management. Waste Management and Denver may seek additional payments from the company if the response costs related to the site exceed $319 million. In 2003 Waste Management, Inc., indicated that the cost of the site clean-up might exceed $319 million in 2030, approximately three years before the projected completion of the project. In January 2015, Waste Management reported that total project costs to date were approximately $140 million. The company might also be responsible for payments (based on 1992 dollars) for any additional wastes that may have been disposed of by the company at the site but which are identified after the execution of the settlement agreement. While remediating the site, contaminants were encountered, which could add an additional clean-up cost of approximately $10 million. This additional clean-up cost could, in turn, add approximately $1 million to total site costs for the PRP group. At this time, there are no Lowry Landfill actions in which the company is actively involved. Based on the information available to the company at this time, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company. In November 2012, the USEPA wrote to the company asserting that it is one of at least 50 PRPs with respect to the Lower Duwamish site located in Seattle, Washington, based on the company’s ownership of a glass container plant prior to 1995, and notifying the company of a proposed remediation action plan. An allocator has been selected to begin data review on over 30 industrial companies and government entities and at least two PRP groups have begun to discuss various allocation proposals, and this process may last approximately one more year. During the third quarter of 2014, the PRP groups voted to include 20 new members. The USEPA issued the site Record of Decision (ROD) on December 2, 2014. Ball submitted its initial responses to the allocator’s questionnaire in March 2015, and after reviewing submissions from the PRPs alleging deficiencies in certain of Ball’s responses, the allocator denied certain of the allegations and directed the company to answer others, to which Ball responded during the fourth quarter of 2016. A group of de minimis PRPs, including Ball, have retained a technical consultant to assist with their positions vis-à-vis larger PRPs. Total site remediation costs of $342 million, to cover remediation of approximately 200 acres of river bottom, are expected according to the proposed remediation action plan, which does not include $100 million that has already been spent, and which will be allocated among the numerous PRPs in due course. Based on the information available to the company at this time, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company. In February 2012, Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. (BMBCC) filed an action against Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. (Crown) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio seeking a declaratory judgment that the sale and use of certain ends by BMBCC and its customers do not infringe certain claims of Crown’s U.S. patents. Crown subsequently filed a counterclaim alleging infringement of certain claims in these patents seeking unspecified monetary damages, fees and declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court issued a claim construction order at the end of December 2015 and held a scheduling conference on February 10, 2016, to determine the timeline for future steps in the litigation. The case was stayed by mutual agreement of the parties into the third quarter of 2016, during which Crown made preparations for its discovery with respect to certain ends previously produced by Rexam, and such discovery began during the first half of 2017. The parties attempted to mediate the case on August 1, 2017, but no progress was made, and the case continues as scheduled. Based on the information available to the company at the present time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company. On September 16, 1971, Rexham Corporation (Rexham) was incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of Riegel Paper Company (Riegel). On September 23, 1971, Riegel, Federal Paper Board Company (Federal) and Rexham entered into an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the 1971 Agreement) pursuant to which Riegel spun-off its packaging business into the newly formed Rexham. Federal retained Riegel’s paper group pursuant to a merger with Riegel. International Paper Company (International Paper) and Georgia Pacific Corporation (Georgia Pacific) are successors to Riegel. Image Products Group, LLC (IPG) is the successor to Rexham. Rexam Inc. (RI) sold IPG to Sun Coating Acquisition Corp. (Sun) in 2002 and agreed to indemnify Sun and IPG for certain environmental liabilities of Rexham. On November 4, 2011, International Paper and Georgia Pacific filed a complaint against RI and IPG alleging that pursuant to the 1971 Agreement, IPG and RI are liable for 50 percent of the clean-up costs at the Crown Vantage Landfill (the Site). The Site is an inactive industrial landfill on the Delaware River in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, that was operated by Riegel and its successors from the 1930s to the 1970s. The USEPA conducted an emergency clean-up at the Site after a 2004 flood exposed drums and other waste. Georgia Pacific took over the clean-up at the Site. Georgia Pacific later sued International Paper as a successor to Riegel. Georgia Pacific and International Paper entered into a settlement agreement under which International Paper accepted responsibility for the Site. The litigation against IPG and RI centers on the interpretation of the 1971 Agreement and whether it allocated the Site liabilities to the paper group of Riegel, which merged with and into Federal, a predecessor of International Paper, or to the packaging group of Riegel, which was spun off to Rexham. Georgia Pacific and International Paper claim they have incurred past costs at the Site of approximately $14 million, and that Rexam’s share of these costs is approximately $7 million. Georgia Pacific and International Paper have also asserted that they have incurred approximately $30 million in remediation costs at the Curtis Specialty Papers Superfund site, the former paper mill adjacent to the Site. In addition, Georgia Pacific, International Paper and the EPA have claimed that Rexam is responsible for certain other non-material amounts associated with the Curtis Papers site and related former paper mill sites. In the fourth quarter of 2016, representatives of Ball/Rexam and Georgia Pacific and International Paper participated in a court ordered mediation in an attempt to resolve this matter. No resolution was reached. During the second quarter of 2017, the court placed the case on administratively terminated status pending ongoing discussions among the parties. In October 2017, the parties concluded a settlement agreement pursuant to which the litigation was dismissed and Georgia Pacific and International Paper released Rexam Inc., IPG and their respective affiliates from all remediation and clean-up costs and other environmental claims and liabilities in respect of the Crown Vantage Landfill, the Curtis Papers Superfund site and other former Riegel paper mill properties in New Jersey, and these matters are now substantially concluded. A former Rexam Personal Care site in Annecy, France, was found in 2003 to be contaminated following a leak of chlorinated solvents (TCE) from an underground feedline. The site underwent extensive investigation and an active remediation treatment system was put in place in 2006. The business operating from the site was sold to Albea in 2013 and in turn to a French company CATIDOM (operating as Reboul). Reboul vacated the site in September 2014, and the site reverted back to Rexam during the first quarter of 2015. As part of the site closure regulatory requirements, a new regulatory permit (Prefectoral Order) was issued in June 2016, which includes requirements to undertake a cost-benefit analysis and pilot studies of further treatment for the known residual solvent contamination following the shutdown of the current on-site treatment system. A new management plan will be proposed to the French Environmental Authorities (DREAL) later this year or during 2018. Based on the information available to the company at this time, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company. The company’s operations in Brazil are involved in various governmental assessments, principally related to claims for taxes on the internal transfer of inventory, gross revenue taxes and indirect tax incentives. The company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will materially impact the company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Under customary local regulations, the company’s Brazilian subsidiaries may need to post cash or other collateral if the process to challenge any administrative assessment proceeds to the Brazilian court system; however, the level of any potential cash or collateral required would not significantly impact the liquidity of those subsidiaries or Ball Corporation.

18. Contingencies

Ball is subject to numerous lawsuits, claims or proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of business, including actions related to: product liability, personal injury, the use and performance of company products; warranty matters; patent, trademark or other intellectual property infringement; contractual liability, the conduct of the company’s business; tax reporting in domestic and foreign jurisdictions; workplace safety, and environmental and other matters. The company has also been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at several waste disposal sites under U.S. federal and related state environmental statutes and regulations and may have joint and several liability for any investigation and remediation costs incurred with respect to such sites. In addition, we have received claims alleging that employees in certain plants have suffered damages due to exposure to alleged workplace hazards. Some of these lawsuits, claims and proceedings involve substantial amounts, including as described below, and some of the environmental proceedings involve potential monetary costs or sanctions that may be material. Ball has denied liability with respect to many of these lawsuits, claims and proceedings and is vigorously defending such lawsuits, claims and proceedings. The company carries various forms of commercial, property and casualty and other forms of insurance; however, such insurance may not be applicable or adequate to cover the costs associated with a judgment against Ball with respect to these lawsuits, claims and proceedings. The company estimates that potential liabilities for all currently known and estimable environmental matters are approximately $45 million in the aggregate and have been included in other current liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities at September 30, 2017.

As previously reported, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) considers the company a PRP with respect to the Lowry Landfill site located east of Denver, Colorado. In 1992, the company was served with a lawsuit filed by the City and County of Denver (Denver) and Waste Management of Colorado, Inc., seeking contributions from the company and approximately 38 other companies. The company filed its answer denying the allegations of the complaint. Subsequently in 1992, the company was served with a third-party complaint filed by S.W. Shattuck Chemical Company, Inc., seeking contribution from the company and other companies for the costs associated with cleaning up the Lowry Landfill. The company denied the allegations of the complaint.

Also in 1992, Ball entered into a settlement and indemnification agreement with Chemical Waste Management, Inc., and Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. (collectively Waste Management) and Denver pursuant to which Waste Management and Denver dismissed their lawsuit against the company, and Waste Management agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the company from claims and lawsuits brought by governmental agencies and other parties relating to actions seeking contributions or remedial costs from the company for the clean-up of the site. Waste Management, Inc., has agreed to guarantee the obligations of Waste Management. Waste Management and Denver may seek additional payments from the company if the response costs related to the site exceed $319 million. In 2003 Waste Management, Inc., indicated that the cost of the site clean-up might exceed $319 million in 2030, approximately three years before the projected completion of the project. In January 2015, Waste Management reported that total project costs to date were approximately $140 million. The company might also be responsible for payments (based on 1992 dollars) for any additional wastes that may have been disposed of by the company at the site but which are identified after the execution of the settlement agreement. While remediating the site, contaminants were encountered, which could add an additional clean-up cost of approximately $10 million. This additional clean-up cost could, in turn, add approximately $1 million to total site costs for the PRP group. At this time, there are no Lowry Landfill actions in which the company is actively involved. Based on the information available to the company at this time, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company.

In November 2012, the USEPA wrote to the company asserting that it is one of at least 50 PRPs with respect to the Lower Duwamish site located in Seattle, Washington, based on the company’s ownership of a glass container plant prior to 1995, and notifying the company of a proposed remediation action plan. An allocator has been selected to begin data review on over 30 industrial companies and government entities and at least two PRP groups have begun to discuss various allocation proposals, and this process may last approximately one more year. During the third quarter of 2014, the PRP groups voted to include 20 new members. The USEPA issued the site Record of Decision (ROD) on December 2, 2014. Ball submitted its initial responses to the allocator’s questionnaire in March 2015, and after reviewing submissions from the PRPs alleging deficiencies in certain of Ball’s responses, the allocator denied certain of the allegations and directed the company to answer others, to which Ball responded during the fourth quarter of 2016. A group of de minimis PRPs, including Ball, have retained a technical consultant to assist with their positions vis-à-vis larger PRPs. Total site remediation costs of $342 million, to cover remediation of approximately 200 acres of river bottom, are expected according to the proposed remediation action plan, which does not include $100 million that has already been spent, and which will be allocated among the numerous PRPs in due course. Based on the information available to the company at this time, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company.

In February 2012, Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. (BMBCC) filed an action against Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. (Crown) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio seeking a declaratory judgment that the sale and use of certain ends by BMBCC and its customers do not infringe certain claims of Crown’s U.S. patents. Crown subsequently filed a counterclaim alleging infringement of certain claims in these patents seeking unspecified monetary damages, fees and declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court issued a claim construction order at the end of December 2015 and held a scheduling conference on February 10, 2016, to determine the timeline for future steps in the litigation. The case was stayed by mutual agreement of the parties into the third quarter of 2016, during which Crown made preparations for its discovery with respect to certain ends previously produced by Rexam, and such discovery began during the first half of 2017. The parties attempted to mediate the case on August 1, 2017, but no progress was made, and the case continues as scheduled. Based on the information available to the company at the present time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company.

On September 16, 1971, Rexham Corporation (Rexham) was incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of Riegel Paper Company (Riegel). On September 23, 1971, Riegel, Federal Paper Board Company (Federal) and Rexham entered into an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the 1971 Agreement) pursuant to which Riegel spun-off its packaging business into the newly formed Rexham. Federal retained Riegel’s paper group pursuant to a merger with Riegel. International Paper Company (International Paper) and Georgia Pacific Corporation (Georgia Pacific) are successors to Riegel. Image Products Group, LLC (IPG) is the successor to Rexham. Rexam Inc. (RI) sold IPG to Sun Coating Acquisition Corp. (Sun) in 2002 and agreed to indemnify Sun and IPG for certain environmental liabilities of Rexham.

On November 4, 2011, International Paper and Georgia Pacific filed a complaint against RI and IPG alleging that pursuant to the 1971 Agreement, IPG and RI are liable for 50 percent of the clean-up costs at the Crown Vantage Landfill (the Site). The Site is an inactive industrial landfill on the Delaware River in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, that was operated by Riegel and its successors from the 1930s to the 1970s. The USEPA conducted an emergency clean-up at the Site after a 2004 flood exposed drums and other waste. Georgia Pacific took over the clean-up at the Site. Georgia Pacific later sued International Paper as a successor to Riegel. Georgia Pacific and International Paper entered into a settlement agreement under which International Paper accepted responsibility for the Site. The litigation against IPG and RI centers on the interpretation of the 1971 Agreement and whether it allocated the Site liabilities to the paper group of Riegel, which merged with and into Federal, a predecessor of International Paper, or to the packaging group of Riegel, which was spun off to Rexham.

Georgia Pacific and International Paper claim they have incurred past costs at the Site of approximately $14 million, and that Rexam’s share of these costs is approximately $7 million. Georgia Pacific and International Paper have also asserted that they have incurred approximately $30 million in remediation costs at the Curtis Specialty Papers Superfund site, the former paper mill adjacent to the Site. In addition, Georgia Pacific, International Paper and the EPA have claimed that Rexam is responsible for certain other non-material amounts associated with the Curtis Papers site and related former paper mill sites.

In the fourth quarter of 2016, representatives of Ball/Rexam and Georgia Pacific and International Paper participated in a court ordered mediation in an attempt to resolve this matter. No resolution was reached. During the second quarter of 2017, the court placed the case on administratively terminated status pending ongoing discussions among the parties. In October 2017, the parties concluded a settlement agreement pursuant to which the litigation was dismissed and Georgia Pacific and International Paper released Rexam Inc., IPG and their respective affiliates from all remediation and clean-up costs and other environmental claims and liabilities in respect of the Crown Vantage Landfill, the Curtis Papers Superfund site and other former Riegel paper mill properties in New Jersey, and these matters are now substantially concluded.

A former Rexam Personal Care site in Annecy, France, was found in 2003 to be contaminated following a leak of chlorinated solvents (TCE) from an underground feedline. The site underwent extensive investigation and an active remediation treatment system was put in place in 2006. The business operating from the site was sold to Albea in 2013 and in turn to a French company CATIDOM (operating as Reboul). Reboul vacated the site in September 2014, and the site reverted back to Rexam during the first quarter of 2015. As part of the site closure regulatory requirements, a new regulatory permit (Prefectoral Order) was issued in June 2016, which includes requirements to undertake a cost-benefit analysis and pilot studies of further treatment for the known residual solvent contamination following the shutdown of the current on-site treatment system. A new management plan will be proposed to the French Environmental Authorities (DREAL) later this year or during 2018. Based on the information available to the company at this time, we do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of the company.

The company’s operations in Brazil are involved in various governmental assessments, principally related to claims for taxes on the internal transfer of inventory, gross revenue taxes and indirect tax incentives. The company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will materially impact the company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Under customary local regulations, the company’s Brazilian subsidiaries may need to post cash or other collateral if the process to challenge any administrative assessment proceeds to the Brazilian court system; however, the level of any potential cash or collateral required would not significantly impact the liquidity of those subsidiaries or Ball Corporation.