Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2020
Contingencies
Contingencies	21. 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, the company has 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 $28 million in the aggregate, and such amounts have been included in other current liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities at June 30, 2020. 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. A site was selected to begin data review on over 30 industrial companies and government entities and at least two PRP groups have been discussing various allocation proposals. The USEPA issued the site Record of Decision (ROD) in December 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, retained a technical consultant to assist with their positions vis-à-vis larger PRPs, and further presentations were made to the site allocator during the fourth quarter of 2017 and the first quarter of 2018. 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 at this time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon its liquidity, results of operations or financial condition. 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 (the Court) seeking a declaratory judgment that the manufacture, 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’s U.S. subsidiary, Rexam Beverage Can Company (RBCC). Such discovery began during the first half of 2017 and concluded in the fourth quarter of 2018. The parties attempted to mediate the case on August 1, 2017, but no progress was made, and the case continued as scheduled. In December, 2018, BMBCC and RBCC filed a motion for summary judgment that the Crown patents at issue are invalid and that the applicable ends supplied by BMBCC and RBCC did not infringe the patents. Crown did not file a motion for summary judgment. Oral argument on the motion filed by BMBCC and RBCC was completed in January 2019. On June 21, 2019, the District Court issued an order sustaining the BMBCC/RBCC motion as to invalidity, declining to rule on the other grounds as moot, and indicating that an expanded opinion and an appealable order would be forthcoming. The expanded opinion was docketed on July 22, 2019. The final, appealable order was issued by the Court on September 25, 2019, and the expanded opinion was unsealed. On October 22, 2019, Crown filed a Notice of Appeal of the decision of the Court to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Crown filed its appeal brief on February 4, 2020, BMBCC’s reply brief was filed on May 5, 2020, and Crown’s reply brief was filed on June 30, 2020. Based on the information available at the present time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon its liquidity, results of operations or financial condition. 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 was proposed to the French Environmental Authorities (DREAL) during 2018 and is the subject of ongoing discussions ahead of a final plan for the site being addressed. Based on the information available at this time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon its liquidity, results of operations or financial condition. 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 sales 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. During the first quarter of 2017, the Brazilian Supreme Court (the Court) ruled against the Brazilian tax authorities in a leading case related to the computation of certain indirect taxes. The Court ruled that the indirect tax base should not include a value-added tax known as “ICMS.” By removing the ICMS from the tax base, the Court effectively eliminated a “tax on tax.” The Court decision, in principle, affects all applicable judicial proceedings in progress. However, after publication of the decision in October 2017, the Brazilian tax authorities filed an appeal seeking clarification of certain matters, including the amount of ICMS to which taxpayers would be entitled in order to reduce their indirect tax base (i.e., the gross rate or net rate). The appeal also requested a modulation of the decision’s effects, which may limit its impact on taxpayers. The company’s Brazilian subsidiaries paid to the Brazilian tax authorities the gross amounts of certain indirect taxes (which included ICMS in their tax base) and filed lawsuits in 2014 and 2015 to challenge the legality of these tax on tax amounts. Pursuant to these lawsuits, the company requested reimbursement of prior excess tax payments and entitlement to retain amounts not remitted. During the third quarter of 2018, the company learned of a further decision of the Court indicating that lawsuits filed prior to the trial resulting in its 2017 decision, such as those filed by the company, would likely be upheld. The company also noted that other Brazilian companies, including customers of its Brazilian subsidiaries, which had timely filed equivalent lawsuits, were recording income based on the applicable ICMS amounts retained. During the second quarter of 2019, the company received additional favorable court rulings and completed its analysis of certain prior year overpayments related to ICMS. As these gain contingency amounts were determined to be estimable and realizable, the company recorded $57 million of prior year collections in business consolidation and other activities within the company’s 2019 condensed consolidated statement of earnings. The company is currently seeking reimbursement for additional ICMS-related amounts previously paid to the Brazilian government; however, such amounts cannot be estimated at this time. In the event other comparable cases are resolved and the amounts claimed become estimable and realizable, the company will record gains, which may result in material reimbursements to the company in future periods.

Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

21. 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, the company has 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 $28 million in the aggregate, and such amounts have been included in other current liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities at June 30, 2020.

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. A site was selected to begin data review on over 30 industrial companies and government entities and at least two PRP groups have been discussing various allocation proposals. The USEPA issued the site Record of Decision (ROD) in December 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, retained a technical consultant to assist with their positions vis-à-vis larger PRPs, and further presentations were made to the site allocator during the fourth quarter of 2017 and the first quarter of 2018. 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 at this time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon its liquidity, results of operations or financial condition.

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 (the Court) seeking a declaratory judgment that the manufacture, 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’s U.S. subsidiary, Rexam Beverage Can Company (RBCC). Such discovery began during the first half of 2017 and concluded in the fourth quarter of 2018. The parties attempted to mediate the case on August 1, 2017, but no progress was made, and the case continued as scheduled. In December, 2018, BMBCC and RBCC filed a motion for summary judgment that the Crown patents at issue are invalid and that the applicable ends supplied by BMBCC and RBCC did not infringe the patents. Crown did not file a motion for summary judgment. Oral argument on the motion filed by BMBCC and RBCC was completed in January 2019. On June 21, 2019, the District Court issued an order sustaining the BMBCC/RBCC motion as to invalidity, declining to rule on the other grounds as moot, and indicating that an expanded opinion and an appealable order would be forthcoming. The expanded opinion was docketed on July 22, 2019. The final, appealable order was issued by the Court on September 25, 2019, and the expanded opinion was unsealed. On October 22, 2019, Crown filed a Notice of Appeal of the decision of the Court to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Crown filed its appeal brief on February 4, 2020, BMBCC’s reply brief was filed on May 5, 2020, and Crown’s reply brief was filed on June 30, 2020. Based on the information available at the present time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon its liquidity, results of operations or financial condition.

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 was proposed to the French Environmental Authorities (DREAL) during 2018 and is the subject of ongoing discussions ahead of a final plan for the site being addressed. Based on the information available at this time, the company does not believe that this matter will have a material adverse effect upon its liquidity, results of operations or financial condition.

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 sales 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.

During the first quarter of 2017, the Brazilian Supreme Court (the Court) ruled against the Brazilian tax authorities in a leading case related to the computation of certain indirect taxes. The Court ruled that the indirect tax base should not include a value-added tax known as “ICMS.” By removing the ICMS from the tax base, the Court effectively eliminated a “tax on tax.” The Court decision, in principle, affects all applicable judicial proceedings in progress. However, after publication of the decision in October 2017, the Brazilian tax authorities filed an appeal seeking clarification of certain matters, including the amount of ICMS to which taxpayers would be entitled in order to reduce their indirect tax base (i.e., the gross rate or net rate). The appeal also requested a modulation of the decision’s effects, which may limit its impact on taxpayers.

The company’s Brazilian subsidiaries paid to the Brazilian tax authorities the gross amounts of certain indirect taxes (which included ICMS in their tax base) and filed lawsuits in 2014 and 2015 to challenge the legality of these tax on tax amounts. Pursuant to these lawsuits, the company requested reimbursement of prior excess tax payments and entitlement to retain amounts not remitted. During the third quarter of 2018, the company learned of a further decision of the Court indicating that lawsuits filed prior to the trial resulting in its 2017 decision, such as those filed by the company, would likely be upheld. The company also noted that other Brazilian companies, including customers of its Brazilian subsidiaries, which had timely filed equivalent lawsuits, were recording income based on the applicable ICMS amounts retained. During the second quarter of 2019, the company received additional favorable court rulings and completed its analysis of certain prior year overpayments related to ICMS. As these gain contingency amounts were determined to be estimable and realizable, the company recorded $57 million of prior year collections in business consolidation and other activities within the company’s 2019 condensed consolidated statement of earnings. The company is currently seeking reimbursement for additional ICMS-related amounts previously paid to the Brazilian government; however, such amounts cannot be estimated at this time. In the event other comparable cases are resolved and the amounts claimed become estimable and realizable, the company will record gains, which may result in material reimbursements to the company in future periods.