Part II  iteM 7 Management’s Discussion and analysis of Financial Condition and results of operations Our total significant committed contracts that we believe will affect cash over the next four years and beyond are as follows: (1) Excluding discounts. (2) Contractual interest is the interest we are contracted to pay on our long-term debt obligations. We had $23.0 million of long-term debt subject to variable interest rates at  December 31, 2010. The rate assumed for the variable interest component of the contractual interest obligation was the rate in effect at December 31, 2010. Variable rates are market  determined and will fluctuate over time. (3) Before sub-lease rental income. (4) Payments associated with our Ewing research and development facility. (5) At December 31, 2010, the net value of these contracts results in a liability position. (6) Purchase obligations consist of agreements to purchase goods and services that are enforceable and legally binding on us and specify all significant terms, including fixed or minimum  quantities to be purchased, price provisions and timing of the transaction. We have entered into a number of purchase obligations for the sourcing of materials and energy where take-or-pay  arrangements apply. Since the majority of the minimum obligations under these contracts are take-or-pay commitments over the life of the contract as opposed to a year by year take-or-pay,  the obligations in the table related to these types of contracts are presented in the earliest period in which the minimum obligation could be payable under these types of contracts. (7) As of December 31, 2010, the liability for uncertain tax positions was $17.3 million and this liability is excluded from the table above. Due to the high degree of uncertainty regarding the  timing of potential future cash flows associated with these liabilities, we are unable to make a reasonably reliable estimate of the amount and periods in which these liabilities might be paid. On January 28, 2005, we and our wholly owned subsidiary Foret received  a Statement of Objections from the European Commission concerning  alleged violations of competition law in the hydrogen peroxide business in  Europe during the period 1994 to 2001. All of the significant European  hydrogen peroxide producers also received the Statement of Objections. We  and Foret responded to the Statement of Objections in April 2005 and a  hearing on the matter was held at the end of June 2005. On May 3, 2006,  we received a notice from the European Commission indicating that  the European Commission had imposed a fine on us and Foret in the  aggregate amount of €25.0 million as a result of alleged violations during  the period 1997-1999. In connection with this fine, we recorded an  expense of $30.0 million (reflecting then-prevailing exchange rates) in our  consolidated statements of income for the year ended December 31, 2006.  This expense was included as a component of “Restructuring and other  charges (income)”. Both we and Foret have appealed the decision of the  European Commission. The Foret appeal was argued before the Court  of First Instance on March 4, 2010, but no decision has been rendered.  The FMC appeal was argued in May of 2010. During the appeal process,  interest accrues on the fine, which as of December 31, 2010, was at a  rate of 4.0 percent per annum. We have provided a bank letter of credit  in favor of the European Commission to guarantee our payment of the  fine and accrued interest. At December 31, 2010, the amount of the  letter of credit was €30.5 million (U.S. $41.2 million). In February 2005, putative direct and indirect purchaser class action  complaints were filed against six U.S. hydrogen peroxide producers  (and certain of their foreign affiliates) in various federal courts alleging  violations of antitrust laws. Related cases were also filed in various state  courts. In January 2009, FMC reached an agreement to settle with the  direct purchaser class for $10 million, with a pro rata credit for opt outs.  The $10 million figure was included as a component of “Restructuring  and other charges (income)” in our consolidated statements of income  for the year ended December 31, 2008. Ten companies (predominantly  paper producers) opted out of this class settlement. FMC settled with two  of the ten companies for an amount within the opt out credit described  above. The remaining eight opt outs filed suit against FMC and, in some  cases, Foret. These cases were assigned to the same judge as the class action.  FMC’s motion to dismiss the opt out claims to the extent they were based  on foreign purchases was granted on April 1, 2010. FMC has settled the  remaining claims of these eight opt outs for an aggregate of $1.7 million  which is net of a $0.3 million opt out credit. Another individual opt out  case was dismissed following the bankrupt opt out’s decision to participate  in the class settlement. FMC settled the indirect purchaser class claims for  $0.25 million. The settlement has been finally approved by the Court,  and all remaining state court cases have been dismissed with prejudice.  We recorded the $2.0 million as a component of “Restructuring and  other charges (income)” in our consolidated statements of income for  the year ended December 31, 2010. As a result, all U.S. litigation against  FMC regarding alleged price fixing in the hydrogen peroxide industry  is now concluded. We still face putative class actions against FMC and  five other major hydrogen peroxide producers in provincial courts in  Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under the laws of Canada. Four  of the defendants have settled these claims for a total of approximately  $20.5 million. On September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court  of Justice certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen  peroxide. FMC moved for leave to appeal the class certification decision,  which was denied in June 2010. The Company intends to defend these  cases. Since the proceedings are in the preliminary stages with respect to  the merits, we believe an exposure of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Like hundreds of other industrial companies, we have been named as one  of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Most  of these cases allege personal injury or death resulting from exposure  to asbestos in premises of FMC or to asbestos-containing components  installed in machinery or equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued  operations. We intend to continue managing these cases in accordance with  our historical experience. We have established a reserve for this litigation  within our discontinued operations and believe that any exposure of a  loss in excess of the established reserve cannot be reasonably estimated. Contingencies 30 FMC Corporation    2010 Form 10K Contractual Commitments (in Millions) Expected Cash Payments by Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 & beyond total Debt maturities  (1) $134.9 $21.6 $6.5 $32.7 $443.3 $639.0 Contractual interest  (2) 33.2 26.6 25.2 24.6 239.5 349.1 Lease obligations  (3) 25.7 22.6 21.9 19.5 48.8 138.5 Certain long-term liabilities  (4) 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 23.0 31.4 Forward energy and foreign exchange  contracts  (5) 6.8 — — — — 6.8 Purchase obligations  (6) 49.2 22.4 21.9 1.5 0.8 95.8 total  (7) $251.9 $95.3 $77.6 $80.4 $755.4 $1,206.6