26 – Risks from litigation and claims

In the arbitration proceedings initiated in May 2013, Metrogas S.A., Chile, claims damages valued in an amount of €227 million as a result of insufficient gas deliveries against Wintershall Energía S.A., Argentina (WIAR), Total Austral S.A., Argentina, and Pan American Energy LLC, Argentina. The defendants, as sellers, concluded a natural gas supply contract with Metrogas in 1997. WIAR’s share of supply in the contract is 37,5%. After the resignation of the chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal in mid-2016, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) nominated a new Arbitral Tribunal that pursued the arbitration proceedings during 2017. The hearing took place in April 2017. On February 2, 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the Metrogas claim in its entirety and imposed the procedural costs on Metrogas.

BASF Corporation has potential liability under the Comprehensive Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and related state laws for investigation and cleanup at certain sites. The Lower Passaic River Study Area (LPRSA) is one such site comprising the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River in New Jersey. BASF Corporation and more than 60 other companies (collectively, the Lower Passaic River Study Area Cooperating Parties Group or CPG) are conducting a remedial investigation / feasibility study (RI/FS) of the LPRSA. In 2016, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) selected a final remedy for the lower 8 miles of the LPRSA. An agreement with USEPA on work in the upper portion of the LPRSA may occur as early as 2018.

Between November 2014 and March 2015, a putative class action lawsuit and several additional lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York against BASF Metals Limited (BML), based in the United Kingdom, along with other defendants, alleging violations of antitrust and commodities laws stemming from the price discovery process for platinum and palladium. The lawsuits were consolidated, and a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was eventually filed in July 2015. This Complaint also names as a defendant, among others, BASF Corporation. On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, and BML and BASF Corporation filed individual motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2017, the Court dismissed the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against BASF Corporation and BML on jurisdictional grounds. On May 15, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint that renews allegations against defendants and BML, while BASF Corporation is not named as a defendant. The defendants filed a renewed Joint Motion to Dismiss and BML filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss. A pro se complaint filed in September 2015 was dismissed by the U.S. District Court on October 19, 2017. The plaintiff filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals on November 19, 2017.

Furthermore, BASF SE and its affiliated companies are defendants in or parties to a variety of judicial, arbitrational or regulatory proceedings on a recurring basis. To our current knowledge, none of these proceedings will have a material effect on the economic situation of BASF.