Celanese - 10-Q quarterly report FY

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ     No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined inRule 12b-2of the Exchange Act).  Yes o     No þ

The number of outstanding shares of the registrant’s Series A common stock, $0.0001 par value, as of October 17, 2008 was 143,406,433.

Celanese Corporation and its subsidiaries (collectively the “Company”) is a leading global integrated chemical and advanced materials company. The Company’s business involves processing chemical raw materials, such as methanol, carbon monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp, into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other chemical-based products.

In this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q,the term “Celanese US” refers to the Company’s subsidiary, Celanese US Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and not its subsidiaries. The term “Purchaser” refers to the Company’s subsidiary, Celanese Europe Holding GmbH & Co. KG, a German limited partnership, and not its subsidiaries, except where otherwise indicated. The term “Advisor” refers to Blackstone Management Partners, an affiliate of The Blackstone Group. The term “CAG” refers to Celanese GmbH, formerly known as Celanese AG, its consolidated subsidiaries, its non-consolidated subsidiaries, ventures and other investments. The term “Original Shareholders” refers, collectively, to Blackstone Capital Partners (Cayman) Ltd. 1, Blackstone Capital Partners (Cayman) Ltd. 2, Blackstone Capital Partners (Cayman) Ltd. 3 and BA Capital Investors Sidecar Fund, L.P.

The unaudited interim consolidated financial statements for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007 contained in this Quarterly Report were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“US GAAP”) for all periods presented. The unaudited interim consolidated financial statements and other financial information included in this Quarterly Report, unless otherwise specified, have been presented to separately show the effects of discontinued operations.

In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited consolidated balance sheets and related unaudited interim consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss) include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring items necessary for their fair presentation in conformity with US GAAP. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with US GAAP have been condensed or omitted in accordance with rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). These unaudited interim consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Celanese Corporation and Subsidiaries consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed on February 29, 2008 with the SEC as part of the Company’s Annual Report onForm 10-K(the “2007Form 10-K”).

Operating results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the entire year.

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with US GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues, expenses and allocated charges during the reporting period. Significant estimates pertain to impairments of goodwill, intangible assets and other long-lived assets, purchase price allocations, restructuring costs and other (charges) gains, net, income taxes, pension and other postretirement benefits, asset retirement obligations, environmental liabilities and loss contingencies, among others. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

The Company has reclassified certain prior period amounts to conform to the current period’s presentation.

In December 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements — an amendment of ARB 51 (“SFAS No. 160”) to establish accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. It clarifies that a noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary is an ownership interest in the consolidated entity that should be reported as equity in the consolidated financial statements and establishes a single method of accounting for changes in a parent’s ownership interest in a subsidiary that does not result in deconsolidation. SFAS No. 160 is effective for the Company on January 1, 2009. This standard will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161,Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133(“SFAS No. 161”). SFAS No. 161 requires enhanced disclosures about a company’s derivative and hedging activities. These enhanced disclosures will discuss: (a) how and why a company uses derivative instruments, (b) how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under FASB Statement No. 133 and its related interpretations and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect a company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows. SFAS No. 161 is effective for the Company on January 1, 2009. This standard will have no impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In April 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (“FSP”)FAS No. 142-3,Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets(“FSPFAS No. 142-3”).FSPFAS No. 142-3amends the factors that should be considered in developing renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets. The intent of this FSP is to improve the consistency between the useful life of a recognized intangible asset and the period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value of the asset under SFAS No. 141 (revised 2007),Business Combinations, and other US GAAP. FSPFAS No. 142-3is effective for the Company on January 1, 2009. This standard will have no material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In May 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 162, The Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, (“SFAS No. 162”), which becomes effective November 15, 2008. SFAS No. 162 identifies the sources of accounting principles and the framework for selecting the principles to be used in the preparation of financial statements of nongovernmental entities that are presented in conformity with US GAAP. This standard will have no impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In October 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. 157-3, Determining the Fair Value of a Financial Asset When the Market for That Asset Is Not Active(“FSP No. 157-3”), to provide guidance on determining the fair value of financial instruments in inactive markets. FSP No. 157-3 became effective for the Company upon issuance, and had no material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On January 31, 2007, the Company completed the acquisition of the cellulose acetate flake, tow and film businesses of Acetate Products Limited, a subsidiary of Corsadi B.V. The purchase price for the transaction was approximately £57 million ($112 million), in addition to direct acquisition costs of approximately £4 million ($7 million). As contemplated prior to closing of the acquisition, the Company closed the acquired tow production plant at Little Heath, United Kingdom in September 2007. In accordance with the Company’s sponsor services agreement dated January 26, 2005, as amended, the Company paid the Advisor $1 million in connection with the acquisition. The acquired business is included in the Company’s Consumer Specialties segment.

On April 6, 2004, the Company acquired 84% of CAG. During 2005, the Company acquired an additional 14% of CAG. On May 30, 2006, CAG’s shareholders approved a transfer to the Purchaser of all shares owned by minority shareholders against payment of cash compensation in the amount of €66.99 per share (the “Squeeze-Out”). As a result of the effective registration of the Squeeze-Out in the commercial register in Germany in December 2006, the Company acquired the remaining 2% of CAG in January 2007. The Company’s current ownership percentage in CAG is 100%.

In March 2007, the Company entered into a strategic partnership with Accsys Technologies PLC (“Accsys”), and its subsidiary, Titan Wood Ltd., to become the exclusive supplier of acetyl products to Titan Wood’s technology licensees for use in wood acetylation. In conjunction with this partnership, in May 2007, the Company acquired 8,115,883 shares of Accsys’ common stock representing approximately 5.45% of the total voting shares of Accsys for €22 million ($30 million). The investment was treated as an available-for-sale security and was included as a component of current Marketable securities, at fair value, in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet. In November 2007, the Company and Accsys announced an agreement to amend their business arrangements such that each company will have a nonexclusive “at-will” trading and supply relationship to give both companies greater flexibility. As part of this amendment, the Company subsequently sold all of its shares of Accsys stock for approximately €20 million ($30 million), which resulted in a cumulative loss of $3 million.

In connection with the Company’s strategy to optimize its portfolio and divest non-core operations, the Company announced on December 13, 2006 its agreement to sell its Acetyl Intermediates segment’s oxo products and derivatives businesses, including European Oxo GmbH (“EOXO”), a50/50venture between CAG and Degussa AG (“Degussa”), to Advent International, for a purchase price of €480 million ($636 million) subject to final agreement adjustments and the successful exercise of the Company’s option to purchase Degussa’s 50% interest in EOXO. On February 23, 2007, the option was exercised and the Company acquired Degussa’s interest in the venture for a purchase price of €30 million ($39 million), in addition to €22 million ($29 million) paid to extinguish EOXO’s debt upon closing of the transaction. The Company completed the sale of its oxo products and derivatives businesses, including the acquired 50% interest in EOXO, on February 28, 2007. The sale included the oxo and derivatives businesses at the Oberhausen, Germany, and Bay City, Texas facilities as well as portions of the Company’s Bishop, Texas facility. Also included were EOXO’s facilities within the Oberhausen and Marl, Germany plants. The former oxo and derivatives businesses acquired by Advent International were renamed Oxea. Taking into account agreed deductions by the buyer for pension and other employee benefits and various costs for separation activities, the Company received proceeds of approximately €443 million ($585 million) at closing. The transaction resulted in the recognition of a $47 million pre-tax gain, which includes certain working capital and other adjustments, in 2007. Due to certain lease-back arrangements between the Company and the buyer and related environmental obligations of the Company, approximately $51 million of the transaction proceeds attributable to the fair value of the underlying land at Oberhausen (€36 million) and Bay City ($1 million) is included in deferred proceeds in noncurrent Other liabilities, and divested land with a book value of $14 million (€10 million at Oberhausen and $1 million at Bay City) remains in property, plant and equipment, net, in the consolidated balance sheets.

The Company concluded, based on the nature and limited projected magnitude of the continuing business relationship between the Company and Oxea, that the divestiture of the oxo products and derivatives businesses should be accounted for as discontinued operations. Third party sales of $5 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 would have been eliminated upon consolidation were the divestiture not accounted for as discontinued operations.

In accordance with the Company’s sponsor services agreement dated January 26, 2005, as amended, the Company paid the Advisor $6 million in connection with the sale of the oxo products and derivatives businesses.

During the second quarter of 2007, the Company discontinued its Edmonton, Alberta, Canada methanol operations, which were included in the Acetyl Intermediates segment. As a result, the earnings (loss) related to the Edmonton methanol operations are accounted for as discontinued operations.

Net sales and gross profit (loss) for discontinued operations for the three months ended September 30, 2007 were $0 million and $(1) million, respectively. Net sales and gross profit for discontinued operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 were $197 million and $46 million, respectively.

In July 2007, the Company reached an agreement with Babcock & Brown, a worldwide investment firm which specializes in real estate and utilities development, to sell the Company’s Pampa, Texas, facility. The Company will maintain its chemical operations at the site until at least 2009. Proceeds received upon certain milestone events will be treated as deferred proceeds and included in noncurrent Other liabilities in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets until the transaction is complete (expected to be in 2010), as defined in the sales agreement. These operations are included in the Company’s Acetyls Intermediates segment. In September 2008, the Company determined that two of the milestone events, which are outside of the Company’s control, are unlikely to be achieved. The Company performed a discounted cash flow analysis which resulted in a $21 million long-lived asset impairment charge to Other (charges) gains, net, in the consolidated statements of operations during the three months ended September 30, 2008 (see Note 12).

In August 2007, the Company sold its Films business of AT Plastics, located in Edmonton and Westlock, Alberta, Canada, to British Polythene Industries PLC (“BPI”) for $12 million. The Films business manufactures products for the agricultural, horticultural and construction industries. The Company recorded a loss on the sale of $7 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007. The Company maintained ownership of the Polymers business of AT Plastics, which concentrates on the development and supply of specialty resins and compounds. AT Plastics is included in the Company’s Industrial Specialties segment. The Company concluded that the sale of the Films business of AT Plastics is not a discontinued operation due to the level of continuing cash flows between the Films business and AT Plastics’ Polymers business subsequent to the sale. Under the terms of the purchase agreement, the Company entered into a two year sales agreement to continue selling product to BPI through August 2009.

In May 2008, shareholders of the Company’s Koper, Slovenia legal entity voted to approve the April 2008 decision by the Company to permanently shut down this emulsions production site. The decision to shut down the site resulted in employee severance of less than $1 million which is included in Other (charges) gains, net, in the consolidated statements of operations during the nine months ended September 30, 2008. Currently, the facility is idle and the existing fixed assets, including machinery and equipment, buildings and land are being marketed for sale. The net book value of the assets held for sale is approximately $1 million. The Koper, Slovenia legal entity is included in the Company’s Industrial Specialties segment.

In July 2008, the Company sold its 55.46% interest in Derivados Macroquimicos S.A. de C.V. (“DEMACSA”) for proceeds of $3 million. DEMACSA produces cellulose ethers at an industrial complex in Zacapu, Michoacan, Mexico and is included in the Company’s Acetyl Intermediates segment. In June 2008, the Company recorded an impairment charge of $1 million. As a result, the proceeds from the sale approximated the carrying value of DEMACSA on the date of the sale. The Company concluded the sale of DEMACSA is not a discontinued operation due to certain forms of continuing involvement between the Company and DEMACSA subsequent to the sale.

In February 2007, the Company wrote-off its remaining €1 million ($1 million) cost investment in European Pipeline Development Company B.V. (“EPDC”) which was included in the Company’s Acetyl Intermediates

In connection with the Company’s annual goodwill impairment test, the Company did not record an impairment charge to goodwill during the nine months ended September 30, 2008.

Aggregate amortization expense for intangible assets with finite lives during the three months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007 was $19 million and $18 million, respectively. Aggregate amortization expense for intangible assets with finite lives during the nine months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007 was $58 million and $53 million, respectively.

Estimated amortization expense for the succeeding five fiscal years is $63 million in 2009, $55 million in 2010, $51 million in 2011, $39 million in 2012 and $24 million in 2013.

In connection with the Company’s annual indefinite-lived intangible assets impairment test, the Company did not record an impairment to indefinite-lived intangible assets during the nine months September 30, 2008.

The Company’s senior credit agreement consists of $2,280 million of US dollar-denominated and €400 million of Euro-denominated term loans due 2014, a $650 million revolving credit facility terminating in 2013 and a $228 million credit-linked revolving facility terminating in 2014. Borrowings under the senior credit agreement bear interest at a variable interest rate based on LIBOR (for US dollars) or EURIBOR (for Euros), as applicable, or, for US dollar-denominated loans under certain circumstances, a base rate, in each case plus an applicable margin. The applicable margin for the term loans and any loans under the credit-linked revolving facility is 1.75%, subject to potential reductions as defined in the senior credit agreement. As of September 30, 2008, the applicable margin was 1.5% and continues to be subject to potential adjustments as defined in the senior credit agreement. The term loans under the senior credit agreement are subject to amortization at 1% of the initial principal amount per annum, payable quarterly. The remaining principal amount of the term loans is due on April 2, 2014.

As of September 30, 2008, there were no outstanding borrowings or letters of credit issued under the revolving credit facility; accordingly, $650 million remained available for borrowing. As of September 30, 2008, there were $92 million of letters of credit issued under the credit-linked revolving facility and $136 million remained available for borrowing.

The senior credit agreement is guaranteed by Celanese Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of Celanese Corporation, and certain domestic subsidiaries of Celanese US, and is secured by a lien on substantially all assets of Celanese US and such guarantors, subject to certain agreed exceptions, pursuant to the Guarantee and Collateral Agreement, dated as of April 2, 2007, by and among Celanese Holdings LLC, Celanese US, certain subsidiaries of Celanese US and Deutsche Bank AG, New York Branch, as Administrative Agent and as Collateral Agent.

The Company is in compliance with all of the covenants related to its debt agreements as of September 30, 2008.

In March 2007, the Company announced a comprehensive recapitalization plan to refinance its debt and repurchase shares. On April 2, 2007, the Company, through certain of its subsidiaries, entered into a new senior credit agreement. Proceeds from the new senior credit agreement, together with available cash, were used to retire the Company’s $2,454 million amended and restated (January 2005) senior credit facilities, which consisted of $1,626 million in term loans due 2011, a $600 million revolving credit facility terminating in 2009 and a $228 million credit-linked revolving facility terminating in 2009, and to retire all of the Company’s 9.625% senior subordinated notes due 2014 and 10.375% senior subordinated notes due 2014 (the “Senior Subordinated Notes”) and 10% senior discount notes due 2014 and 10.5% senior discount notes due 2014 (the “Senior Discount Notes”) as discussed below.

On March 6, 2007, the Company commenced cash tender offers (the “Tender Offers”) with respect to any and all of the Senior Discount Notes, and any and all of the Senior Subordinated Notes. The Tender Offers expired on April 2, 2007. Substantially all of the Senior Discount Notes and Senior Subordinated Notes were tendered in conjunction with the Tender Offers. The remaining outstanding Senior Discount Notes and Senior Subordinated Notes not tendered in conjunction with the Tender Offers were redeemed by the Company in May 2007 through optional redemption allowed in the indentures.

As a result of the refinancing, the Company incurred premiums paid on early redemption of debt, accelerated amortization and other refinancing expense. The components of refinancing expense are as follows:

The components of current Other liabilities are as follows:

To protect the foreign currency exposure of a net investment in a foreign operation, the Company entered into cross currency swaps with certain financial institutions in 2004. The cross currency swaps and the Euro-denominated portion of the senior term loan were designated as a hedge of a net investment of a foreign operation. Under the terms of the cross currency swap arrangements, the Company paid approximately €13 million in interest and received approximately $16 million in interest on June 15 and December 15 of each year. The fair value of the net obligation under the cross currency swaps was included in current Other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2007. Upon maturity of the cross currency swap arrangements in June 2008, the Company owed €276 million ($426 million) and was owed $333 million. In settlement of the obligation, the Company paid $93 million (net of interest of $3 million) in June 2008.

In September 2008, the Company dedesignated €340 million of the €400 million euro-denominated portion of the term loan, previously designated as a hedge of a net investment of a foreign operation. Prior to this dedesignation, the Company entered into external derivative contracts to offset foreign currency exposures on intercompany loans. The foreign currency exposure resulting from dedesignation of €340 million of the hedge of a net investment of a foreign operation is expected to offset the foreign currency exposure on certain intercompany loans, decreasing the need for external derivative contracts and reducing the Company’s exposure to external counterparties. The remaining €60 million euro-denominated portion of the term loan continues to be designated as a hedge of a net investment of a foreign operation.

The components of noncurrent Other liabilities are as follows:

The components of net periodic benefit costs recognized are as follows:

The Company expects to contribute $40 million to its defined benefit pension plans in 2008. As of September 30, 2008, $33 million of contributions have been made. The Company’s estimates of its US defined benefit pension plan contributions reflect the provisions of the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004 and the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

The Company expects to make benefit contributions of $34 million under the provisions of its other postretirement benefit plans in 2008. As of September 30, 2008, $25 million of benefit contributions have been made.

The Company participates in multiemployer defined benefit plans in Europe covering certain employees. The Company’s contributions to the multiemployer defined benefit plans are based on specified percentages of employee contributions and totaled $5 million for both the nine months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007.

As a result of the sale of the oxo products and derivatives businesses in February 2007 (see Note 3), there was a reduction of approximately 1,076 employees triggering a settlement and remeasurement of the affected pension plans due to certain changes in actuarial valuation assumptions. The settlement and remeasurement resulted in a net increase in the projected benefit obligation of $44 million with an offset to Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net (net of tax of $1 million) and a settlement gain of $11 million (included in Gain (loss) on disposal of discontinued operations) for the pension plan during the nine months ended September 30, 2007.

In February 2008, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $400 million of the Company’s Series A common stock. The authorization gives management discretion in determining the conditions under which shares may be repurchased. During the nine months ended September 30, 2008, the Company repurchased 9,763,200 shares of its Series A common stock at an average purchase price of $38.68 per share for a total of $378 million pursuant to this authorization.

Purchases of treasury stock reduce the number of shares outstanding and the repurchased shares may be used by the Company for compensation programs utilizing the Company’s stock and other corporate purposes. The Company accounts for treasury stock using the cost method and includes treasury stock as a component of Shareholders’ equity.

Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax, totaled $(89) million and $24 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. These amounts were net of tax expense of $0 and $4 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax, totaled $(98) million and $7 million for the three months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. These amounts were net of tax expense of $0 and $3 million for the three months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

The Company is involved in a number of legal proceedings, lawsuits and claims incidental to the normal conduct of business, relating to such matters as product liability, antitrust, past waste disposal practices and release of chemicals into the environment. While it is impossible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, lawsuits and claims, the Company believes, based on the advice of legal counsel, that adequate provisions have been made and that the ultimate outcomes will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company; however, the ultimate outcome of any given matter may have a material impact on the results of operations or cash flows of the Company in a given reporting period.

CNA Holdings, Inc. (“CNA Holdings”), a US subsidiary of the Company, which included the US business now conducted by the Ticona business which is included in the Advanced Engineered Materials segment, along with Shell Oil Company (“Shell”), E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) and others, has been a defendant in a series of lawsuits, including a number of class actions, alleging that plastics manufactured by these companies that were utilized in the production of plumbing systems for residential property were defective or caused such plumbing systems to fail. Based on, among other things, the findings of outside experts and the successful use of Ticona’s acetal copolymer in similar applications, CNA Holdings does not believe Ticona’s acetal copolymer was defective or caused the plumbing systems to fail. In many cases CNA Holdings’ potential future exposure may be limited by invocation of the statute of limitations since CNA Holdings ceased selling the resin for use in the plumbing systems in site-built homes during 1986 and in manufactured homes during 1990.

In November 1995, CNA Holdings, DuPont and Shell entered into national class action settlements which called for the replacement of plumbing systems of claimants who have had qualifying leaks, as well as reimbursements for certain leak damage. In connection with such settlement, the three companies had agreed to fund these replacements and reimbursements up to an aggregate amount of $950 million. As of September 30, 2008, the aggregate funding is $1,103 million, due to additional contributions and funding commitments made primarily by other parties.

During the period between 1995 and 2001, CNA Holdings was also named as a defendant in the following putative class actions:

In addition, between 1994 and 2003 CNA Holdings was named as a defendant in approximately 20 non-class actions filed in ten states, the US Virgin Islands and Canada that are currently pending. In all of these actions, the

As of September 30, 2008 the Company had remaining accruals of $64 million, of which $2 million is included in current Other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet. As of December 31, 2007, the Company had remaining accruals of $65 million, of which $3 million was included in current Other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet.

CAG entered into agreements with insurance companies related to product liability settlements associated with Celcon^®plumbing claims. These agreements, except those with insolvent insurance companies, require the Company to indemnifyand/ordefend these insurance companies in the event that third parties seek additional monies for matters released in these agreements. The indemnifications in these agreements do not provide for time limitations.

In certain of the agreements, CAG received a fixed settlement amount. The indemnities under these agreements generally are limited to, but in some cases are greater than, the amount received in settlement from the insurance company. The maximum exposure under these indemnifications is $95 million. Other settlement agreements have no stated limits.

There are other agreements whereby the settling insurer agreed to pay a fixed percentage of claims that relate to that insurer’s policies. The Company has provided indemnifications to the insurers for amounts paid in excess of the settlement percentage. These indemnifications do not provide for monetary or time limitations.

The Company has reserves associated with these product liability claims which the Company believes are adequate.

In May 2002, the European Commission informed Hoechst AG (“Hoechst”) of its intent to officially investigate the sorbates industry. In early January 2003, the European Commission served Hoechst, Nutrinova, Inc., a US subsidiary of Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food Ingredients GmbH and previously a wholly owned subsidiary of Hoechst (“Nutrinova”), and a number of competitors of Nutrinova with a statement of objections alleging unlawful, anticompetitive behavior affecting the European sorbates market. In October 2003, the European Commission ruled that Hoechst, Chisso Corporation, Daicel Chemical Industries Ltd. (“Daicel”), The Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. and Ueno Fine Chemicals Industry Ltd. operated a cartel in the European sorbates market between 1979 and 1996. The European Commission imposed a total fine of €138 million on such companies, of which €99 million was assessed against Hoechst and its legal successors. The case against Nutrinova was closed. Pursuant to the Demerger Agreement with Hoechst, CAG was assigned the obligation related to the sorbates antitrust matter; however, Hoechst, and its legal successors, agreed to indemnify CAG for 80% of any costs CAG incurred relative to this matter. Accordingly, CAG recognized a receivable from Hoechst from this indemnification. In June 2008, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) reduced the fine against Hoechst to €74.25 million and in July 2008, Hoechst paid the €74.25 million fine. In August 2008, the Company paid Hoechst €17 million, including interest of €2 million, in satisfaction of its 20% obligation with respect to the fine.

Based on the advice of external counsel and a review of the existing facts and circumstances relating to the sorbates antitrust matters, including the settlement of the European Union’s investigation, as well as civil claims filed and settled, the Company released its accruals related to the settled sorbates antitrust matters and the indemnification receivables resulting in a gain of $8 million, net, included in Other (charges) gains, net, in the

In addition, in 2004 a civil antitrust action styled Freeman Industries LLC v. Eastman Chemical Co., et. al. was filed against Hoechst and Nutrinova, Inc. in the Law Court for Sullivan County in Kingsport, Tennessee. The plaintiff sought monetary damages and other relief for alleged conduct involving the sorbates industry. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and upon appeal the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. In December 2005, the plaintiff lost an attempt to amend its complaint and the entire action was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court. Plaintiff’s counsel has subsequently filed a new complaint with new class representatives in the District Court of the District of Tennessee. The Company’s motion to strike the class allegations was granted in April 2008 and the plaintiff’s appeal of such ruling is currently pending.

On May 9, 1999, Celanese International Corporation filed a private criminal action styled Celanese International Corporation v. China Petrochemical Development Corporationagainst China Petrochemical Development Corporation (“CPDC”) in the Taiwan Kaoshiung District Court alleging that CPDC infringed Celanese International Corporation’s patent covering the manufacture of acetic acid. Celanese International Corporation also filed a supplementary civil brief which, in view of changes in Taiwanese patent laws, was subsequently converted to a civil action alleging damages against CPDC based on a period of infringement of ten years,1991-2000,and based on CPDC’s own data which was reported to the Taiwanese securities and exchange commission. Celanese International Corporation’s patent was held valid by the Taiwanese patent office. On August 31, 2005, the District Court held that CPDC infringed Celanese International Corporation’s acetic acid patent and awarded Celanese International Corporation approximately $28 million (plus interest) for the period of 1995 through 1999. In October 2008, the High Court, on appeal, dismissed the District Court’s ruling. The Company is currently considering whether to appeal this decision to the Taiwan Supreme Court. On January 16, 2006, the District Court awarded Celanese International Corporation $800,000 (plus interest) for the year 1990. In addition, on June 29, 2007, the District Court awarded Celanese International Corporation $60 million (plus interest) for the period of 2000 through 2005. The awards for the periods of 1990 and 2000 through 2005 are currently under appeal by CPDC.

The domination and profit and loss transfer agreement (the “Domination Agreement”) between CAG and the Purchaser was approved at the CAG extraordinary shareholders’ meeting on July 31, 2004. The Domination Agreement became effective on October 1, 2004 and cannot be terminated by the Purchaser in the ordinary course of business until September 30, 2009. Two of the Company’s subsidiaries, Celanese International Holdings Luxembourg S.à r.l. (“CIH”), and Celanese US, have each agreed to provide the Purchaser with financing to strengthen the Purchaser’s ability to fulfill its obligations under, or in connection with, the Domination Agreement and to ensure that the Purchaser will perform all of its obligations under, or in connection with, the Domination Agreement when such obligations become due, including, without limitation, the obligation to compensate CAG for any statutory annual loss incurred by CAG during the term of the Domination Agreement. If CIHand/orCelanese US are obligated to make payments under such guarantees or other security to the Purchaser, the Company may not have sufficient funds for payments on its indebtedness when due. The Company has not had to compensate CAG for an annual loss for any period during which the Domination Agreement has been in effect.

The amounts of the fair cash compensation and of the guaranteed annual payment offered under the Domination Agreement may be increased in special award proceedings initiated by minority shareholders, which

As a result of the special proceedings discussed above, amounts paid as fair cash compensation to certain minority shareholders of CAG could be increased by the court such that minority shareholders could be awarded amounts in excess of the fair cash compensation they have previously received.

The Company received applications for the commencement of award proceedings filed by 79 shareholders against the Purchaser with the Frankfurt District Court requesting the court to set a higher amount for the Squeeze-Out compensation. The motions are based on various alleged shortcomings and mistakes in the valuation of CAG done for purposes of the Squeeze-Out. On May 11, 2007, the court of first instance appointed a common representative for those shareholders that have not filed an application on their own.

The shareholders’ resolution approving the Squeeze-Out passed at the shareholders’ meeting on May 30, 2006 was challenged in June 2006 by seventeen actions seeking to set aside such resolution. In addition, a null and void action was served upon CAG in November 2006. The Squeeze-Out required registration in the commercial register and such registration was not possible while the lawsuits were pending. Therefore, CAG initiated fast track release proceedings asking the court to find that the lawsuits did not prevent registration of the Squeeze-Out. The court of first instance granted the motion regarding the actions to set aside the shareholders’ resolution in a ruling dated October 10, 2006 that was appealed by plaintiff shareholders. In a ruling dated November 30, 2006, the court of first instance also granted the motion with respect to the null and void action.

On December 22, 2006, the Purchaser and CAG signed a settlement agreement with the plaintiff shareholders challenging the shareholders’ resolution approving the Squeeze-Out (“Settlement Agreement I”). Pursuant to Settlement Agreement I, the plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their actions and to drop their complaints in exchange for the Purchaser agreeing to pay the guaranteed annual payment for the fiscal year ended on September 30, 2006 to those minority shareholders who had not yet requested early payment of such dividend and to pay a pro rata share of the guaranteed annual payment for the first five months of the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2007 to all minority shareholders. The Purchaser further agreed to make a donation in the amount of €0.5 million to a charity, to introduce the prospectus governing the January 20, 2005 listing on the NYSE of the shares of the Company, upon request by plaintiffs, into the award proceedings regarding the cash compensation and the guaranteed annual payment under the Domination Agreement and to accord the squeezed-out minority shareholders preferential treatment if, within three years after effectiveness of the Squeeze-Out, the shares of CAG were to be listed on a stock exchange again. As a result of the effective registration of the Squeeze-Out in the commercial register in Germany in December 2006, the Company acquired the remaining 2% of CAG in January 2007.

CNA Holdings, the successor in interest to Hoechst Celanese Corporation (“HCC”), Celanese Americas Corporation and CAG (collectively, the “Celanese Entities”) and Hoechst, the former parent of HCC, were named

In 1998, HCC sold its polyester staple business as part of the sale of its Film & Fibers Division to KoSa B.V.,f/k/a Arteva B.V. and a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc. (“KoSa”). In March 2001 the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) commenced an investigation of possible price fixing regarding the sales of polyester staple fibers in the US subsequent to the period the Celanese Entities were engaged in the polyester staple fiber business. The Celanese Entities were never named in these DOJ actions. As a result of the DOJ action, during August of 2002, Arteva Specialties, S.a.r.l., a subsidiary of KoSa, (“Arteva Specialties”) pled guilty to criminal violation of the Sherman Act related to anti-competitive conduct occurring after the 1998 sale of the polyester staple fiber business and paid a fine of $29 million. In a complaint pending against the Celanese Entities and Hoechst in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Koch Industries, Inc., KoSa, Arteva Specialties and Arteva Services S.a.r.l. seek damages up to $371 million which includes indemnification for all damages related to the defendants’ alleged participation in, and failure to disclose, the alleged conspiracy. The Company is actively defending this matter.

The Company has agreed to guarantee or indemnify third parties for environmental and other liabilities pursuant to a variety of agreements, including asset and business divestiture agreements, leases, settlement agreements and various agreements with affiliated companies. Although many of these obligations contain monetaryand/or time limitations, others do not provide such limitations.

As indemnification obligations often depend on the occurrence of unpredictable future events, the future costs associated with them cannot be determined at this time.

The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with all known matters or claims that have been brought to its attention. These known obligations include the following:

The Company has obligations to indemnify Hoechst, and its legal successors, for various liabilities under the Demerger Agreement, including for environmental liabilities associated with contamination arising under 19 divestiture agreements entered into by Hoechst prior to the demerger.

The Company’s obligation to indemnify Hoechst, and its legal successors, is subject to the following thresholds:

The aggregate maximum amount of environmental indemnifications under the remaining divestiture agreements that provide for monetary limits is approximately €750 million. Three of the divestiture agreements do not provide for monetary limits.

Based on the estimate of the probability of loss under this indemnification, the Company had reserves of $28 million and $27 million as of September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007, respectively, for this contingency. Where the Company is unable to reasonably determine the probability of loss or estimate such loss under an indemnification, the Company has not recognized any related liabilities.

The Company has also undertaken in the Demerger Agreement to indemnify Hoechst and its legal successors for liabilities that Hoechst is required to discharge, including tax liabilities, which are associated with businesses that were included in the demerger but were not demerged due to legal restrictions on the transfers of such items. These indemnities do not provide for any monetary or time limitations. The Company has not provided for any reserves associated with this indemnification. The Company has not made any payments to Hoechst or its legal successors during the nine months ended September 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively, in connection with this indemnification.

The Company and its predecessor companies agreed to indemnify third-party purchasers of former businesses and assets for various pre-closing conditions, as well as for breaches of representations, warranties and covenants. Such liabilities also include environmental liability, product liability, antitrust and other liabilities. These indemnifications and guarantees represent standard contractual terms associated with typical divestiture agreements and, other than environmental liabilities, the Company does not believe that they expose the Company to any significant risk.

The Company has divested numerous businesses, investments and facilities through agreements containing indemnifications or guarantees to the purchasers. Many of the obligations contain monetaryand/or time limitations, ranging from one year to thirty years. The aggregate amount of guarantees provided for under these agreements is approximately $2.5 billion as of September 30, 2008. Other agreements do not provide for any monetary or time limitations.

Based on historical claims experience and its knowledge of the sites and businesses involved, the Company believes that it is adequately reserved for these matters. As of September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007, the Company has reserves in the aggregate of $36 million and $27 million, respectively, for these matters.

The Company is secondarily liable under a lease agreement that the Company assigned to a third party. The lease expires on April 30, 2012. The lease liability for the period from October 1, 2008 to April 30, 2012 is estimated to be approximately $28 million.

As of September 30, 2008, Celanese Ltd. and/or CNA Holdings, Inc., both US subsidiaries of the Company, are defendants in approximately 572 asbestos cases. During the nine months ended September 30, 2008, 57 new cases were filed against the Company, 114 cases were resolved, and 4 cases were added and 1 removed after further analysis by outside counsel. Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense costs related to claims arising from these matters. The Company believes that there is no significant exposure related to these matters.

On January 1, 2008, the Company adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements(“SFAS No. 157”) for financial assets and liabilities. SFAS No. 157 became effective for financial assets and liabilities on January 1, 2008. On January 1, 2009, the Company will apply the provisions of SFAS No. 157 for non-recurring fair value measurements of non-financial assets and liabilities, such as goodwill, indefinite-lived intangible assets, property, plant and equipment and asset retirement obligations. SFAS No. 157 defines fair value, thereby eliminating inconsistencies in guidance found in various prior accounting pronouncements, and increases disclosures surrounding fair value calculations.

SFAS No. 157 establishes a three-tiered fair value hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to valuation techniques used in fair value calculations. The three levels of inputs are defined as follows:

Level 2 — inputs that are observable in the marketplace other than those inputs classified as Level 1

Level 3 — inputs that are unobservable in the marketplace and significant to the valuation

SFAS No. 157 requires the Company to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. If a financial instrument uses inputs that fall in different levels of the hierarchy, the instrument will be categorized based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value calculation.

The Company’s financial assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a recurring basis and include securities available for sale and derivative financial instruments. Securities available for sale include US government and corporate bonds, mortgage-backed securities and equity securities. Derivative financial instruments include interest rate swaps and foreign currency forwards and swaps.

Marketable Securities.  Where possible, the Company utilizes quoted prices in active markets to measure debt and equity securities; such items are classified as Level 1 in the hierarchy and include equity securities and US government bonds. When quoted market prices for identical assets are unavailable, varying valuation techniques are used. Common inputs in valuing these assets include, among others, benchmark yields, issuer spreads, forward mortgage-backed securities trade prices and recently reported trades. Such assets are classified as Level 2 in the hierarchy and typically include mortgage-backed securities, corporate bonds and other US government securities.

Derivatives.  Derivative financial instruments are valued in the market using discounted cash flow techniques. These techniques incorporate Level 1 and Level 2 inputs such as interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates. These market inputs are utilized in the discounted cash flow calculation considering the instrument’s term, notional amount, discount rate and credit risk. Significant inputs to the derivative valuation for interest rate swaps and foreign currency forwards and swaps are observable in the active markets and are classified as Level 2 in the hierarchy.

The following fair value hierarchy table presents information about the Company’s assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis:

The components of Other (charges) gains, net are as follows:

Employee termination benefits relate primarily to the Company’s continued strategy to simplify and optimize its business portfolio.

In May 2007, the Original Shareholders sold their remaining equity interest in the Company (“Exit Event” as defined in the deferred compensation plan document) triggering a clause in the 2004 deferred compensation program that resulted in the vesting of certain awards. As a result, the Company expensed $74 million representing deferred compensation plan payments for the respective participants’ 2005 and 2006 contingent benefits.

Additions to the restructuring reserves are employee termination benefits recorded as Other (charges) gains, net. The changes in the restructuring reserves are as follows:

Included in the restructuring reserves are $0 and $5 million as of September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007, respectively, of reserves recorded in noncurrent Other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.

The Company’s effective income tax rate for the three months ended September 30, 2008 was (8)% compared to 1% for the three months ended September 30, 2007. The effective income tax rate decreased for the three months ended September 30, 2008 primarily due to the Company’s change in estimate for the US tax effect on foreign earnings and dividends. The Company’s effective income tax rate for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 was 17% compared to 4% for the nine months ended September 30, 2007. The effective income tax rate increased for the nine months ended September 30, 2008 primarily due to income tax benefits recognized in 2007 related to German income tax reform and US debt refinancing, which were partially offset by the US income tax effect resulting from the maturity of cross currency swap arrangements in June 2008 (see Note 7) and the lower US tax effect on foreign earnings and dividends. The overall effective income tax rate is less than the US statutory federal and state rates primarily due to income being taxed at lower rates in various foreign jurisdictions.

FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes — an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, (“FIN 48”) liabilities for unrecognized tax benefits and related interest and penalties are recorded in Uncertain tax positions in the consolidated balance sheets. For the nine months ended September 30, 2008, the total unrecognized tax benefits recorded under FIN 48 increased by $18 million primarily due to additional interest and increases in unrecognized tax benefits in foreign jurisdictions partially offset by currency translation adjustments. Of the $18 million increase, $8 million relates to current year increases, $18 million relates topre-acquisitionincreases and $(8) million relates to currency translation adjustments.