The levels of inputs used to measure fair value are as follows: Level 1 - unadjusted quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets accessible by the Company 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 The Company’s financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis include securities available for sale and derivative financial instruments.
Securities available for sale include US corporate bonds 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.
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 and recently reported trades.
Such assets are classified as Level 2 in the hierarchy and typically include corporate bonds.
Mutual funds are valued at the net asset value per share or unit multiplied by the number of shares or units held as of the measurement date.
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.
Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis are as follows
## Table 0 ##
property were defective for this use and/or contributed to the failure of such plumbing.
Based on, among other things, the findings of outside experts and the successful use of the Company's acetal copolymer in similar applications, CNA Holdings does not believe the Company's acetal copolymer was defective for this use or contributed to the failure of the plumbing.
In addition, in many cases CNA Holdings' potential future exposure may be limited by, among other things, statutes of limitations and repose.
In November 1995, CNA Holdings, DuPont and Shell entered into national class action settlements in the Cox, et al.
v.  Hoechst Celanese Corporation, et al.
, No.94-0047 (Chancery Ct. , Obion County, Tennessee) matter.
The time to file claims against the class has expired and the entity established by the court to administer the claims was dissolved in September 2010.
In addition between 1995 and 2001, CNA Holdings was named as a defendant in various putative class actions.
The majority of these actions have now been dismissed.
As a result the Company recorded $59 million in reserve reductions and recoveries from associated insurance indemnifications during 2010.
The reserve was further reduced by $4 million during the year ended December 31, 2011 following the dismissal of the remaining US case (St.  Croix, Ltd. , et al.
v.  Shell Oil Company d/b/a Shell Chemical Company, Case No.
XC-97-CR-467, Virgin Islands Superior Court) which was appealed in 2011.
Oral argument for the appeal took place on December 13, 2012 and a decision on the appeal is expected in 2013.
As of December 31, 2012, the class actions in Canada are subject to a pending class settlement that would result in a dismissal of those cases.
The Company does not believe the Possible Loss associated with the remaining matters is material.
Accordingly, the Company has determined to reduce the reserves based on the expiration of the time to file and the resolution of certain claims under the Canada class and no significant active claims outside of Canada.
The Company recorded recoveries and reductions in legal reserves related to plumbing actions to Other (charges) gains, net (Note 17) as follows:
## Table 1 ##
Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation CNA Holdings, the successor in interest to Hoechst Celanese Corporation ("HCC"), Celanese Americas Corporation and Celanese GmbH (collectively, the "Celanese Entities") and Hoechst, the former parent of HCC, were named as defendants in two actions (involving multiple individual participants) filed in September 2006 by US purchasers of polyester staple fibers manufactured and sold by HCC.
The actions alleged that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate customers of polyester staple sold in the US.
These actions were consolidated in a proceeding by a Multi-District Litigation Panel in the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina styled In re Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1516.
On June 12, 2008 the court dismissed these actions with prejudice against all Celanese Entities in consideration of a payment by the Company.
This proceeding related to sales by the polyester staple fibers business which Hoechst sold to KoSa B. V. , f/k/a Arteva B. V. , a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc.  ("KoSa") in 1998.
In November 2003, KoSa sought recovery from the Company (Koch Industries, Inc.  et al.
v.  Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft et al.
, No.03-cv-8679 Southern District NY) alleging a variety of claims, including indemnification and breach of representations, arising out of the 1998 sale.
During the fourth quarter of 2010, the parties settled the case pursuant to a confidential agreement and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
Prior to December 31, 2008, the Company had entered into tolling arrangements with four other alleged US purchasers of polyester staple fibers manufactured and sold by the Celanese Entities.
These purchasers were not included in the settlement and one such company filed suit against the Company in December 2008 (Milliken & Company v.  CNA Holdings, Inc. , Celanese Americas Corporation and Hoechst AG (No.8-SV-00578 W. D. N. C. )).
On September 15, 2011, the case was dismissed with prejudice based on a stipulation and proposed order of voluntary dismissal.
Commercial Actions In April 2007, Southern Chemical Corporation ("Southern") filed a petition in the 190th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas styled Southern Chemical Corporation v.  Celanese Ltd.  (Cause No.2007-25490), seeking declaratory judgment relating to the terms of a multi-year methanol supply contract.
The trial court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment in March 2008 dismissing Southern's claims.
In September 2009, the intermediate Texas appellate court reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case to the trial court.
The Texas Supreme Court subsequently declined both parties'
Polyplastics Co. , Ltd.  Polyplastics is a leading supplier of engineered plastics in the Asia-Pacific region and is a venture between Daicel Chemical Industries Ltd. , Japan (55%) and Ticona LLC (45% ownership and a wholly-owned subsidiary of CNA Holdings LLC).
Polyplastics is a producer and marketer of POM and LCP, with principal production facilities located in Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and China.
Fortron Industries LLC.
Fortron is a leading global producer of polyphenylene sulfide ("PPS"), sold under the Fortron?
brand, which is used in a wide variety of automotive and other applications, especially those requiring heat and/or chemical resistance.
Fortron is a limited liability company whose members are Ticona Fortron Inc.  (50% ownership and a wholly-owned subsidiary of CNA Holdings LLC) and Kureha Corporation (50%).
Fortron's facility is located in Wilmington, North Carolina.
This venture combines the sales, marketing, distribution, compounding and manufacturing expertise of Celanese with the PPS polymer technology expertise of Kureha.
China acetate strategic ventures.
We hold ownership interest in three separate acetate production ventures in China as follows: Nantong Cellulose Fibers Co.  Ltd.  (31%), Kunming Cellulose Fibers Co.  Ltd.  (30%) and Zhuhai Cellulose Fibers Co.  Ltd.  (30%).
The China National Tobacco Corporation, the Chinese state-owned tobacco entity, controls the remaining ownership interest in each of these ventures.
Our Chinese acetate ventures fund their operations using operating cash flow and pay a dividend in the second quarter of each fiscal year based on the ventures' performance for the preceding year.
In 2012, 2011 and 2010, we received cash dividends of $83 million, $78 million and $71 million, respectively.
During 2012, our venture's Nantong facility completed an expansion of its acetate flake and acetate tow capacity, each by 30,000 tons.
We made contributions of $29 million over three years related to the capacity expansion in Nantong.
Similar expansions since the ventures were formed have led to earnings growth and increased dividends for the Company.
According to the Euromonitor database services, China is estimated to have a 42% share of the world's 2011 cigarette consumption and is the fastest growing area for cigarette consumption at an estimated growth rate of 3.5% per year from 2011 through 2016.
Combined, these ventures are a leader in Chinese domestic acetate production and we believe we are well positioned to supply Chinese cigarette producers.
Although our ownership interest in each of our China acetate ventures exceeds 20%, we account for these investments using the cost method of accounting because we determined that we cannot exercise significant influence over these entities due to local government investment in and influence over these entities, limitations on our involvement in the day-to-day operations and the present inability of the entities to provide timely financial information prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States ("US GAAP").  ?
Other Equity Method Investments InfraServs.
We hold indirect ownership interests in several German InfraServ Groups that own and develop industrial parks and provide on-site general and administrative support to tenants.
Our ownership interest in the equity investments in InfraServ ventures are as follows:
## Table 2 ##
Raw Materials and Energy We purchase a variety of raw materials and energy from sources in many countries for use in our production processes.
We have a policy of maintaining, when available, multiple sources of supply for materials.
However, some of our individual plants may have single sources of supply for some of their raw materials, such as carbon monoxide, steam and acetaldehyde.
Although we have been able to obtain sufficient supplies of raw materials, there can be no assurance that unforeseen developments will not affect our raw material supply.
Even if we have multiple sources of supply for a raw material, there can be no assurance that these sources can make up for the loss of a major supplier.
It is also possible profitability will be adversely affected if we are required to qualify additional sources of supply to our specifications in the event of the loss of a sole supplier.
In addition, the price of raw materials varies, often substantially, from year to year.

<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td colspan="6">Fair Value Measurement</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td colspan="2">Quoted Prices in Active Markets forIdentical Assets(Level 1)</td><td colspan="2">Significant OtherObservable Inputs(Level 2)</td><td colspan="2">Total</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td colspan="6">As of December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Balance Sheet Classification</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td colspan="5">(In $ millions)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mutual funds</td><td>Marketable securities, at fair value</td><td>53</td><td>64</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>53</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives Not Designated as Hedges</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Foreign currency forwards and swaps</td><td>Current Other assets</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Total assets</td><td>53</td><td>64</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>55</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives Designated as Cash Flow Hedges</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate swaps</td><td>Current Other liabilities</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-10</td><td>-21</td><td>-10</td><td>-21</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate swaps</td><td>Noncurrent Other liabilities</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-7</td><td>-13</td><td>-7</td><td>-13</td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives Not Designated as Hedges</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate swaps</td><td>Current Other liabilities</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-5</td><td>-2</td><td>-5</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate swaps</td><td>Noncurrent Other liabilities</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-1</td><td>—</td><td>-1</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign currency forwards and swaps</td><td>Current Other liabilities</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-8</td><td>-3</td><td>-8</td><td>-3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Total liabilities</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-31</td><td>-39</td><td>-31</td><td>-39</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">(In $ millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Recoveries</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Legal reserve reductions</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>59</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>As of December 31, 2012 (In percentages)</td></tr><tr><td>InfraServ GmbH & Co. Gendorf KG</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>InfraServ GmbH & Co. Knapsack KG</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>InfraServ GmbH & Co. Hoechst KG</td><td>32</td></tr></table>

Question: what is the percentage change in the cash dividends received by the company in 2011 compare to 2010?
Answer: 0.09859