COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
12 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2015 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
NOTE 20 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Contingencies
Litigation
We are currently a party to various claims and legal proceedings incidental to our operations. If management believes that a loss arising from these matters is probable and can reasonably be estimated, we record the amount of the loss, or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range, and no point within the range is more probable than another. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these matters is assessed and the estimates are revised, if necessary. Based on currently available information, management believes that the ultimate outcome of these matters, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings could occur. An unfavorable ruling could include monetary damages, additional funding requirements or an injunction. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material impact on the financial position and results of operations of the period in which the ruling occurs, or future periods. However, we do not believe that any pending litigation, not covered by insurance, will result in a material liability in relation to our consolidated financial statements. Currently, we have an insurance coverage receivable to cover settlement of the following putative class action and derivative shareholder lawsuits:
In May 2014, alleged purchasers of our common shares filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against us and certain former officers and directors of the Company. The action is captioned Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and Its Division of Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al., No. 1:14-CV-1031. As amended, the action asserts violations of the federal securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements or omissions during the period of March 14, 2012 to March 26, 2013, regarding operations at our Bloom Lake mine in Québec, Canada, and the impact of those operations on our finances and outlook, including sustainability of the dividend, and that the alleged misstatements caused our common shares to trade at artificially inflated prices. The parties have successfully mediated this dispute and reached a settlement in principle, subject to definitive documentation, shareholder notice and court approval. The lawsuit had been referred to our insurance carriers, who will be required to pay the entirety of the $84 million settlement amount, if approved by the court. The court is expected to schedule a settlement approval hearing.
In June 2014, an alleged purchaser of the depositary shares issued by Cliffs in a public offering in February 2013 filed a putative class action, which is captioned Rosenberg v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al., and after a round of removal and remand motions, is now pending in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, No. CV-14-828140. As amended, the suit asserts claims against us, certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, and several underwriters of the offering, alleging disclosure violations in the offering documents regarding operations at our Bloom Lake mine, the impact of those operations on our finances and outlook, and about the progress of our former exploratory chromite project in Ontario, Canada. The parties successfully mediated this dispute and reached a settlement agreement in principle, subject to definitive documentation, notice to class members and court approval. The settlement provides for a payment to the proposed class of $10 million, which has been deposited into escrow by the insurance carriers. A court hearing, during which the parties will seek court approval of the proposed class action settlement, is scheduled for April 14, 2016.
In June and July 2014, alleged shareholders of Cliffs filed three derivative actions in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas asserting claims against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company. These actions, captioned Black v. Carrabba, et al., No. CV-14-827803, Asmussen v. Carrabba, et al., No. CV-14-829259, and Williams, et al. v. Carrabba, et al., No. CV-14-829499, allege that the individually named defendants violated their fiduciary duties to the Company by, among other things, disseminating false and misleading information regarding operations at our Bloom Lake mine in Québec, Canada, and the impact of those operations on our finances and outlook, including sustainability of the dividend, failing to maintain internal controls, and failing to appropriately oversee and manage the Company. The complaints assert additional claims for unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, overpayment upon departure of certain executives, and waste of corporate assets. The parties have reached a settlement in principle to settle all three cases, subject to definitive documentation, shareholder notice and court approval. Under the pending settlement, the Company will agree to enact or continue various corporate-governance related measures and to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses. The lawsuit had been referred to our insurance carriers who will pay $775,000 for attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' lawyers. The settlement of these actions will have no impact on our financial position. Following the announcement of the settlement in principle of these three shareholder derivative cases, an additional derivative shareholder action, captioned Mansour v. Carrabba, et al., No. 16-CV-00390, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the same defendants and alleging substantially identical claims. This additional lawsuit has been referred to our insurance carriers.
Environmental Matters
We had environmental liabilities of $3.6 million and $5.5 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, including obligations for known environmental remediation exposures at active and closed mining operations and other sites. These amounts have been recognized based on the estimated cost of investigation and remediation at each site, and include site studies, design and implementation of remediation plans, legal and consulting fees, and post-remediation monitoring and related activities. If the cost can only be estimated as a range of possible amounts with no specific amount being more likely, the minimum of the range is accrued. Future expenditures are not discounted unless the amount and timing of the cash disbursements are readily known. Potential insurance recoveries have not been reflected. Additional environmental obligations could be incurred, the extent of which cannot be assessed. The amount of our ultimate liability with respect to these matters may be affected by several uncertainties, primarily the ultimate cost of required remediation and the extent to which other responsible parties contribute. Refer to NOTE 11 - ENVIRONMENTAL AND MINE CLOSURE OBLIGATIONS for further information.
Tax Matters
The calculation of our tax liabilities involves dealing with uncertainties in the application of complex tax regulations. We recognize liabilities for anticipated tax audit issues based on our estimate of whether, and the extent to which, additional taxes will be due. If we ultimately determine that payment of these amounts is unnecessary, we reverse the liability and recognize a tax benefit during the period in which we determine that the liability is no longer necessary. We also recognize tax benefits to the extent that it is more likely than not that our positions will be sustained when challenged by the taxing authorities. To the extent we prevail in matters for which liabilities have been established, or are required to pay amounts in excess of our liabilities, our effective tax rate in a given period could be materially affected. An unfavorable tax settlement would require use of our cash and result in an increase in our effective tax rate in the year of resolution. A favorable tax settlement would be recognized as a reduction in our effective tax rate in the year of resolution. Refer to NOTE 9 - INCOME TAXES for further information.
|