Marathon Oil (MRO)

Marathon is required to pay Ashland for deductions relating to various contingent liabilities of Ashland, which could be material.

We are required to claim tax deductions for certain contingent liabilities that will be paid by Ashland after completion of the transactions. Under the tax matters agreement, we are required to pay the benefit of those deductions to Ashland, with the computation and payment terms for such tax benefit payments divided into two “baskets,” as described below:

28

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Basket One – This applies to the first $30 million of contingent liability deductions (increased by inflation each year up to a maximum of $60 million) that we may claim in each year for the first 20 years following the acquisition. The benefit of Basket One deductions is determined by multiplying the amount of the deduction by 32% (or, if different, by a percentage equal to three percentage points less than the highest federal income tax rate during the applicable tax year). We are obligated to pay this amount to Ashland. The computation and payment of Basket One amounts does not depend on our ability to generate actual tax savings from the use of the contingent liability deductions in Basket One. Upon specified events related to Ashland (or after 20 years), the contingent liability deductions that would otherwise have been compensated under Basket One will be taken into account in Basket Two. In addition, Basket One applies only for federal income tax purposes; state, local or foreign tax benefits attributable to specified liability deductions will be compensated only under Basket Two.

Because we are required to make payments to Ashland whether or not we generate any actual tax savings from the Basket One contingent liability deductions, the amount of our tax benefit payments to Ashland with respect to Basket One contingent liability deductions may exceed the aggregate tax benefits that we derive from these deductions. We are obligated to make these payments to Ashland even if we do not have sufficient taxable income to realize any benefit for the deductions.

Basket Two – All contingent liability deductions relating to Ashland’s pre-transactions operations that are not subject to Basket One are considered and compensated under Basket Two. The benefit of Basket Two deductions is determined on a “with and without” basis; that is, the contingent liability deductions are treated as the last deductions used by the Marathon group. Thus, if the Marathon group has deductions, tax credits or other tax benefits of its own, it will be deemed to use them to the maximum extent possible before it will be deemed to use the contingent liability deductions. To the extent that we have the capacity to use the contingent liability deductions based on this methodology, the actual amount of tax saved by the Marathon group through the use of the contingent liability deductions will be calculated and paid to Ashland. Because Basket Two amounts are calculated based on the actual tax saved by the Marathon group from the use of Basket Two deductions, those amounts are subject to recalculation in the event there is a change in the Marathon group’s tax liability for a particular year. This could occur because of audit adjustments or carrybacks of losses or credits from other years, for example. To the extent that such a recalculation results in a smaller Basket Two benefit with respect to a contingent liability deduction for which Ashland has already received compensation, Ashland is required to repay such compensation to Marathon. In the event we become entitled to any repayment, we would be subject to collection risks associated with collecting an unsecured claim from Ashland.

If the transactions resulting in our acquisition of the minority interest in MPC that was previously owned by Ashland were found to constitute a fraudulent transfer or conveyance, we could be required to provide additional consideration to Ashland or to return a portion of the interest in MPC, and either of those results could have a material adverse effect on us.

In a bankruptcy case or lawsuit initiated by one or more creditors or a representative of creditors of Ashland, a court may review our 2005 transactions with Ashland under state fraudulent transfer or conveyance laws. Under those laws, the transactions would be deemed fraudulent if the court determined that the transactions were undertaken for the purpose of hindering, delaying or defrauding creditors or that the transactions were constructively fraudulent. If the transactions were found to be a fraudulent transfer or conveyance, we might be required to provide additional consideration to Ashland or to return all or a portion of the interest in MPC and the other assets we acquired from Ashland.

Under the laws of most states, a transaction could be held to be constructively fraudulent if a court determined that:

29

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

In connection with our transactions with Ashland completed in 2005, we delivered part of the overall consideration (specifically, shares of our common stock having a value of $915 million) to Ashland’s shareholders. In order to help establish that Ashland received reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration from us in the transactions, we obtained a written opinion from a nationally recognized appraisal firm to the effect that Ashland received amounts that were reasonably equivalent to the combined value of Ashland’s interest in MPC and the other assets we acquired. We also obtained a favorable opinion from that appraisal firm relating to various financial tests that supported our conclusion and Ashland’s representation to us that Ashland was not insolvent either before or after giving effect to the closing of the transactions. Those opinions were based on specific information provided to the appraisal firm and were subject to various assumptions, including assumptions relating to Ashland’s existing and contingent liabilities and insurance coverages. Although we are confident in our conclusions regarding (1) Ashland’s receipt of reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration and (2) Ashland’s solvency, it should be noted that the valuation of any business and a determination of the solvency of any entity involve numerous assumptions and uncertainties, and it is possible that a court could disagree with our conclusions.

Marathon is required to pay Ashland for deductions relating to various contingent liabilities of Ashland, which could be material.

        We are required to claim tax deductions for certain contingent liabilities that will be paid by Ashland after completion of the transactions. Under the tax matters agreement, we are required to pay the benefit of those deductions to Ashland, with the computation and payment terms for such tax benefit payments divided into two "baskets," as described below:

Basket One – This applies to the first $30 million of contingent liability deductions (increased by inflation each year up to a maximum of $60 million) that we may claim in each year for the first 20 years following the acquisition. The benefit of Basket One deductions is determined by multiplying the amount of the deduction by 32% (or, if different, by a percentage equal to three percentage points less than the highest federal income tax rate during the applicable tax year). We are obligated to pay this amount to Ashland. The computation and payment of Basket One amounts does not depend on our ability to generate actual tax savings from the use of the contingent liability deductions in Basket One. Upon specified events related to Ashland (or after 20 years), the contingent liability deductions that would

25

otherwise have been compensated under Basket One will be taken into account in Basket Two. In addition, Basket One applies only for federal income tax purposes; state, local or foreign tax benefits attributable to specified liability deductions will be compensated only under Basket Two.

Because we are required to make payments to Ashland whether or not we generate any actual tax savings from the Basket One contingent liability deductions, the amount of our tax benefit payments to Ashland with respect to Basket One contingent liability deductions may exceed the aggregate tax benefits that we derive from these deductions. We are obligated to make these payments to Ashland even if we do not have sufficient taxable income to realize any benefit for the deductions.

Basket Two – All contingent liability deductions relating to Ashland's pre-transactions operations that are not subject to Basket One are considered and compensated under Basket Two. The benefit of Basket Two deductions is determined on a "with and without" basis; that is, the contingent liability deductions are treated as the last deductions used by the Marathon group. Thus, if the Marathon group has deductions, tax credits or other tax benefits of its own, it will be deemed to use them to the maximum extent possible before it will be deemed to use the contingent liability deductions. To the extent that we have the capacity to use the contingent liability deductions based on this methodology, the actual amount of tax saved by the Marathon group through the use of the contingent liability deductions will be calculated and paid to Ashland. Because Basket Two amounts are calculated based on the actual tax saved by the Marathon group from the use of Basket Two deductions, those amounts are subject to recalculation in the event there is a change in the Marathon group's tax liability for a particular year. This could occur because of audit adjustments or carrybacks of losses or credits from other years, for example. To the extent that such a recalculation results in a smaller Basket Two benefit with respect to a contingent liability deduction for which Ashland has already received compensation, Ashland is required to repay such compensation to Marathon. In the event we become entitled to any repayment, we would be subject to collection risks associated with collecting an unsecured claim from Ashland.

If the transactions resulting in our acquisition of the minority interest in MPC that was previously owned by Ashland were found to constitute a fraudulent transfer or conveyance, we could be required to provide additional consideration to Ashland or to return a portion of the interest in MPC, and either of those results could have a material adverse effect on us.

        In a bankruptcy case or lawsuit initiated by one or more creditors or a representative of creditors of Ashland, a court may review our 2005 transactions with Ashland under state fraudulent transfer or conveyance laws. Under those laws, the transactions would be deemed fraudulent if the court determined that the transactions were undertaken for the purpose of hindering, delaying or defrauding creditors or that the transactions were constructively fraudulent. If the transactions were found to be a fraudulent transfer or conveyance, we might be required to provide additional consideration to Ashland or to return all or a portion of the interest in MPC and the other assets we acquired from Ashland.

        Under the laws of most states, a transaction could be held to be constructively fraudulent if a court determined that:

•

the transferor received less than "reasonably equivalent value" or, in some jurisdictions, less than "fair consideration" or "valuable consideration;" and



•

the transferor:



•

was insolvent at the time of the transfer or was rendered insolvent by the transfer;



•

was engaged, or was about to engage, in a business or transaction for which its remaining property constituted unreasonably small capital; or



•

intended to incur, or believed it would incur, debts beyond its ability to pay as those debts matured.

        In connection with our transactions with Ashland completed in 2005, we delivered part of the overall consideration (specifically, shares of our common stock having a value of $915 million) to Ashland's shareholders. In order to help establish that Ashland received reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration from us in the transactions, we obtained a written opinion from a nationally recognized appraisal firm to the effect that Ashland received amounts that were reasonably equivalent to the combined value of Ashland's interest in MPC and the other assets we acquired. We also obtained a favorable opinion from that appraisal firm relating to various financial tests that supported our conclusion and Ashland's representation to us that Ashland was not insolvent either before or after giving effect to the closing of the transactions. Those opinions were based on specific information provided to the appraisal firm and were subject to various assumptions, including assumptions relating to Ashland's existing and contingent liabilities and insurance coverages. Although we are confident in our conclusions regarding (1) Ashland's receipt of reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration and (2) Ashland's solvency, it should be noted that the

26

valuation of any business and a determination of the solvency of any entity involve numerous assumptions and uncertainties, and it is possible that a court could disagree with our conclusions.