Management Report - Beursgorilla

ArcelorMittal Annual Report 200978 Consolidated Financial StatementsNotes to the Consolidated Financial Statements continuedArcelorMittal and Subsidiaries(millions of U.S. dollars, except share and per share data)South AfricaArcelorMittal South Africa was involvedin a dispute with Harmony Gold MiningCompany Limited and Durban RoodeportDeep Limited in which the latter companiesalleged that ArcelorMittal South Africawas in violation of the Competition Act.In 2007, the Competition Tribunal ruledin favor of the plaintiffs and imposeda penalty on ArcelorMittal South Africaof approximately 97 and behavioralremedies. On May 29, 2009, theCompetition Appeal Court ordered bothdecisions of the Competition Tribunal of2007 to be set aside, both on the meritsand on the remedies thereof, and referredthe matter back to the CompetitionTribunal. On September 14, 2009,the plaintiffs withdrew their complaintbefore the Competition Tribunal againstArcelorMittal South Africa following asettlement between the parties, which didnot include any admission of liability orwrongdoing by ArcelorMittal South Africa.In February 2007, the complaint previouslyfiled with the South African CompetitionCommission by Barnes Fencing, a SouthAfrican producer of galvanized wire,alleging that ArcelorMittal South Africa,as a “dominant firm”, discriminated inpricing its low carbon wire rod, wasreferred to the Competition Tribunal.The claimant seeks, among othersanctions, a penalty of 10% ofArcelorMittal South Africa’s sales for2006 in respect of low carbon wire rodand an order that ArcelorMittal SouthAfrica cease its pricing discrimination.In March 2008, the Competition Tribunalaccepted the claimants’ application forleave to intervene, prohibiting, however,the claimant from seeking as relief theimposition of an administrative penalty.ArcelorMittal is unable to assess theoutcome of this proceeding or the amountof ArcelorMittal South Africa’s potentialliability, if any.On September 1, 2009, the South AfricanCompetition Commission referred acomplaint against four producers of longcarbon steel in South Africa, includingArcelorMittal South Africa, and the SouthAfrican Iron and Steel Institute to theCompetition Tribunal. The complaint referralfollowed an investigation into allegedcollusion among the producers initiated inApril 2008, on-site inspections conductedat the premises of some of the producersand a leniency application by Scaw SouthAfrica, one of the producers underinvestigation. The Competition Commissionrecommended that the CompetitionTribunal impose an administrative penaltyagainst ArcelorMittal South Africa, CapeGate and Cape Town Iron Steel Worksin the amount of 10% of their annualrevenues in South Africa and exports fromSouth Africa for 2008. The referral andthe allegations are currently being analyzedand it is too early for ArcelorMittal toassess the potential outcome of theprocedure, including the financial impact.Other Legal ClaimsArcelorMittal is a party to various otherlegal claims. As of December 31, 2009,ArcelorMittal has established reservesof approximately 65 in the aggregate forthe claims disclosed below.United StatesIn July 2004, the Illinois EnvironmentalProtection Agency (the “IEPA”) notifiedIndiana Harbor (East) that it had identifiedthat facility as a potentially responsibleparty in connection with allegedcontamination relating to Hillside MiningCo. (“Hillside”), a company that IndianaHarbor (East) acquired in 1943, operateduntil the late 1940s and whose assets itsold in the early 1950s, in conjunction withthe corporate dissolution of that company.The IEPA has required other potentiallyresponsible parties to conduct aninvestigation of certain areas of potentialcontamination and it is likely thatArcelorMittal USA may be required toparticipate at some level in the future.ArcelorMittal USA intends to defend itselffully in this matter. As of December 31,2009, ArcelorMittal was not able toreasonably estimate the amount ofliabilities relating to this matter, if any.BrazilCompanhia Vale do Rio Doce (“Vale”)has commenced arbitral proceedingsagainst ArcelorMittal España in Brazil,claiming damages arising from allegedlydefective rails supplied by ArcelorMittalEspaña to Vale for the Carajas railwayin Brazil, which Vale alleges causeda derailment on the railway line.Vale quantifies its claim as 64. Initialsubmissions were filed by the parties onNovember 26, 2009 and rebuttals werefiled on January 29, 2010. ArcelorMittalEspaña intends to defend itself fullyin this matter.