| Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Note 16. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Litigation Overview The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, from time to time, are subject to various lawsuits, claims, assessments, and proceedings with respect to product liability, intellectual property, personal injury, commercial, contractual, employment, governmental, environmental, anti-trust, and other such matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. In addition, Chemours, by virtue of its status as a subsidiary of EID prior to its separation on July 1, 2015 (the “Separation”), is subject to or required under the Separation-related agreements executed prior to the Separation to indemnify EID against various pending legal proceedings. Except as noted below, while management believes it is reasonably possible that Chemours could incur losses in excess of the amounts accrued, if any, for the aforementioned proceedings, it does not believe any such loss would have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. It is not possible to predict the outcomes of these various lawsuits, claims, assessments, or proceedings. Disputes between Chemours and EID may arise regarding indemnification matters, including disputes based on matters of law or contract interpretation. Should disputes arise, they could materially adversely affect Chemours. The Company accrues for litigation matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred, and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. Where the available information is only sufficient to establish a range of probable liability, and no point within the range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. When a material loss contingency is reasonably possible, but not probable, the Company does not record a liability, but instead discloses the nature of the matter and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, to the extent such estimate can be made. Legal costs such as outside counsel fees and expenses are recognized in the period in which the expense was incurred. Management believes the Company’s litigation accruals are appropriate based on the facts and circumstances for each matter, which are discussed in further detail below. The following table sets forth the components of the Company’s accrued litigation at September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021.
September 30, 2022 December 31, 2021
Asbestos $ 33 $ 33
PFOA 23 23
All other matters (1) 8 30
Total accrued litigation $ 64 $ 86 (1) At December 31, 2021, all other matters includes $ 25 , which was paid in January 2022, associated with the Company’s portion of the costs to enter into the Settlement Agreement, Limited Release, Waiver and Covenant Not to Sue reflecting Chemours, DuPont, Corteva, EID and the State of Delaware’s agreement to settle and fully resolve claims alleged against the companies. For information regarding this matter, refer to “PFAS” within this “Note 16 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”. The following table sets forth the current and long-term components of the Company’s accrued litigation and their balance sheet locations at September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021.
Balance Sheet Location September 30, 2022 December 31, 2021
Accrued Litigation:
Current accrued litigation (1) Other accrued liabilities (Note 13) $ 13 $ 36
Long-term accrued litigation Other liabilities (Note 15) 51 50
Total accrued litigation $ 64 $ 86 (1) At December 31, 2021, current accrued litigation includes $ 25 , which was paid in January 2022, associated with the Company’s portion of the costs to enter into the Settlement Agreement, Limited Release, Waiver and Covenant Not to Sue reflecting Chemours, DuPont, Corteva, EID and the State of Delaware’s agreement to settle and fully resolve claims alleged against the companies. For information regarding this matter, refer to “PFAS” within this “Note 16 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”. Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) with DuPont, Corteva and EID In January 2021, Chemours, DuPont, Corteva, and EID, a subsidiary of Corteva, entered into a binding MOU, reflecting the parties’ agreement to share potential future legacy liabilities relating to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) arising out of pre-July 1, 2015 conduct (i.e., “Indemnifiable Losses”, as defined in the separation agreement, dated as of June 26, 2015, as amended, between EID and Chemours (the “Separation Agreement”)) until the earlier to occur of: (i) December 31, 2040; (ii) the day on which the aggregate amount of Qualified Spend is equal to $ 4,000 ; or, (iii) a termination in accordance with the terms of the MOU (e.g., non-performance of the escrow funding requirements pursuant to the MOU by any party). As defined in the MOU, Qualified Spend includes: • All Indemnifiable Losses (as defined in the Separation Agreement), including punitive damages, to the extent relating to, arising out of, by reason of, or otherwise in connection with PFAS Liabilities as defined in the MOU (including any mutually agreed-upon settlements); • Any costs or amounts to abate, remediate, financially assure, defend, settle, or otherwise pay for all pre-July 1, 2015 PFAS Liabilities or exposure, regardless of when those liabilities are manifested; includes Natural Resources Damages claims associated with PFAS Liabilities; • Fines and/or penalties from governmental agencies for legacy EID PFAS emissions or discharges prior to the spin-off; and, • Site-Related GenX Claims as defined in the MOU. The parties have agreed that, during the term of the cost-sharing arrangement, Chemours will bear half of the cost of such future potential legacy PFAS liabilities, and DuPont and Corteva will collectively bear the other half of the cost of such future potential legacy PFAS liabilities up to an aggregate $ 4,000 . To date under the MOU, total aggregate Qualified Spend, including settlements, by Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva has amounted to $ 268 . Any recoveries of Qualified Spend from DuPont and/or Corteva under the cost-sharing arrangement will be recognized as an offset to the Company’s cost of goods sold or selling, general, and administrative expense, as applicable, when realizable. Any Qualified Spend incurred by DuPont and/or Corteva under the cost-sharing arrangement will be recognized in the Company’s cost of goods sold or selling, general, and administrative expense, as applicable, when the amounts of such costs are probable and estimable or expensed as incurred with respect to period costs, such as legal expenses. The Company incurred expenditures subject to cost-sharing as Qualified Spend under the MOU of approximately $ 44 and $ 108 during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022 , respectively, and $ 30 and $ 72 during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, respectively. After the term of this arrangement, Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the Separation Agreement would continue unchanged, subject in each case to certain exceptions set out in the MOU. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the parties have agreed to release certain claims regarding Chemours’ Delaware lawsuit and confidential arbitration (concerning the indemnification of specified liabilities that EID assigned to Chemours in its spin-off), including that Chemours has released any claim set forth in the complaint filed in the Delaware lawsuit, any other similar claims arising out of or resulting from the facts recited by Chemours in the complaint or the process and manner in which EID structured or conducted the spin-off, and any other claims that challenge the spin-off or the assumption of Chemours Liabilities (as defined in the Separation Agreement) by Chemours and the allocation thereof, subject in each case to certain exceptions set out in the MOU. The parties have further agreed not to bring any future, additional claims regarding the Separation Agreement or the MOU outside of arbitration. The parties have also agreed to establish an escrow account to support and manage the payments for potential future PFAS liabilities. The MOU provides that: (i) no later than each of September 30, 2021 and September 30, 2022, Chemours shall deposit $ 100 into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $ 100 in the aggregate into an escrow account, and (ii) no later than September 30 of each subsequent year through and including 2028, Chemours shall deposit $ 50 into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $ 50 in the aggregate into an escrow account. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the MOU, each party may be permitted to defer funding in any year. Additionally, if on December 31, 2028, the balance of the escrow account (including interest) is less than $ 700 , Chemours will make 50 % of the deposits and DuPont and Corteva together will make 50 % of the deposits necessary to restore the balance of the escrow account to $ 700 . Such payments will be made in a series of consecutive annual equal installments commencing on September 30, 2029 pursuant to the escrow account replenishment terms as set forth in the MOU. Any funds that remain in escrow at termination of the MOU will revert to the party that deposited them. As such, future payments made by the Company into the escrow account will remain an asset of Chemours, and such payments will be reflected as a transfer to restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents on its consolidated balance sheets. As per the terms of the MOU, the Company deposited an additional $ 100 into the escrow account in Sep tember 2022. At September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021 , the Company had $ 201 and $ 100 deposited in the escrow account, respectively. No withdrawals are permitted from the escrow account before January 2026, except for funding mutually agreed-upon third-party settlements in excess of $ 125 . Starting in January 2026, withdrawals may be made from the escrow account to fund Qualified Spend if the parties’ aggregate Qualified Spend in that particular year is greater than $ 200 . Starting in January 2031, the amounts in the escrow account can be used to fund any Qualified Spend. Future payments from the escrow account for potential future PFAS liabilities will be reflected on the Company’s consolidated statement of cash flows at that point in time. The parties will cooperate in good faith to enter into additional agreements reflecting the terms set forth in the MOU. Asbestos In the Separation, EID assigned its asbestos docket to Chemours. At September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021 , there were approximately 900 and 1,000 lawsuits pending against EID alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, respectively. These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products. At September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021 , Chemours had an accrual of $ 33 related to these matters. Benzene In the Separation, EID assigned its benzene docket to Chemours. At September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021 , there were 16 and 19 cases pending against EID alleging benzene-related illnesses, respectively. These cases consist of premises matters involving contractors and deceased former employees who claim exposure to benzene while working at EID sites primarily in the 1960s through the 1980s, and product liability claims based on alleged exposure to benzene found in trace amounts in aromatic hydrocarbon solvents used to manufacture EID products such as paints, thinners, and reducers. Management believes that a loss is reasonably possible as to the docket as a whole; however, given the evaluation of each benzene matter is highly fact-driven and impacted by disease, exposure, and other factors, a range of such losses cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. In May 2021, the Company and EID filed suit in Delaware state court against multiple insurance companies for breach of their contractual obligations to indemnify Chemours and EID against liabilities, costs and losses relating to benzene litigation which are covered under liability insurance policies purchased by EID during the period 1967 to 1986. EID and Chemours are seeking payment of all costs and settlement amounts for past and future benzene cases falling under those policies. The outcome of this matter is not expected to have a material impact on Chemours’ results of operations or financial position. PFOA Chemours does not, and has never, used “PFOA” (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt) as a polymer processing aid nor sold it as a commercial product. Prior to the Separation, the performance chemicals segment of EID made PFOA at its Fayetteville Works site in Fayetteville, North Carolina (“Fayetteville”) and used PFOA as a processing aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers at certain sites, including: Washington Works, Parkersburg, West Virginia; Chambers Works, Deepwater, New Jersey; Dordrecht Works, Netherlands; Changshu Works, China; and, Shimizu, Japan. These sites are now owned and/or operated by Chemours. At September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021 , Chemours maintained accruals of $ 23 , related to PFOA matters under the Leach Settlement (discussed below), EID’s obligations under agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”), and voluntary commitments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (the “NJ DEP”). These obligations and voluntary commitments include surveying, sampling, and testing drinking water in and around certain Company sites, and offering treatment or an alternative supply of drinking water if tests indicate the presence of PFOA in drinking water at or greater than the applicable levels. The Company will continue to work with EPA, NJ DEP and other authorities regarding the extent of work that may be required with respect to these matters. Leach Settlement In 2004, EID settled a class action captioned Leach v. DuPont , filed in West Virginia state court, alleging that approximately 80,000 residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. Among the settlement terms, EID funded a series of health studies by an independent science panel of experts (“C8 Science Panel”) to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and diagnosed high cholesterol. Under the terms of the settlement, EID is obligated to fund up to $ 235 for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and pay the administrative costs associated with the program, including class counsel fees. The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring implemented the program, and testing is ongoing with associated payments to service providers disbursed from an escrow account which the Company replenishes pursuant to the settlement agreement. Through September 30, 2022 , approximately $ 2 has been disbursed from escrow related to medical monitoring. While it is reasonably possible that the Company will incur additional costs related to the medical monitoring program, such costs cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible class members and the scope of testing. In addition, under the Leach settlement agreement, EID must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well users. At Separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours and is included in the $ 23 accrued at September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021. PFOA Leach Class Personal Injury Further, under the Leach settlement, class members may pursue personal injury claims against EID only for those diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. Approximately 3,500 lawsuits were subsequently filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi-district litigation (“MDL”) in Ohio federal court. These were resolved in March 2017 when EID entered into an agreement settling all MDL cases and claims, including all filed and unfiled personal injury cases and claims that were part of the plaintiffs’ counsel’s claims inventory, as well as cases tried to a jury verdict (the “First MDL Settlement”) for $ 670.7 in cash, with half paid by Chemours, and half paid by EID. Concurrently with the First MDL Settlement, EID and Chemours agreed to a limited sharing of potential future PFOA costs (i.e. “Indemnifiable Losses”, as defined in the Separation Agreement between EID and Chemours) for a period of five years . The cost-sharing agreement entered concurrently with the First MDL Settlement has been superseded by the binding MOU addressing certain PFAS matters and costs. For more information on this matter refer to “Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) with Dupont, Corteva and EID” within this “Note 16 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”. While all MDL lawsuits were dismissed or resolved through the First MDL Settlement, the First MDL Settlement did not resolve PFOA personal injury claims of plaintiffs who did not have cases or claims in the MDL or personal injury claims based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. Approximately 96 plaintiffs filed matters after the First MDL Settlement. In January 2021, EID and Chemours entered into settlement agreements with counsel representing these plaintiffs, providing for a settlement of all but one of the 96 then filed and pending cases, as well as additional pre-suit claims, under which those cases and claims of settling plaintiffs were resolved for approximately $ 83 (the “Second MDL Settlement”). Chemours contributed approximately $ 29 and DuPont and Corteva each contributed approximately $ 27 to the Second MDL Settlement. The single then-pending matter not included in the Second MDL Settlement is a testicular cancer case tried in March 2020 to a verdict of $ 40 in compensatory and emotional distress damages and $ 10 in loss of consortium damages. The jury found that EID’s conduct did not warrant punitive damages. In March 2021, the trial court issued post trial rulings which reduced the consortium damages to $ 0.25 . The Company has appealed the verdict. The Company believes that the probability of a loss regarding the verdict is remote, given numerous meritorious grounds for pending post-trial motions and appeal. In August 2022, a personal injury case was filed in federal court in West Virginia on behalf of a plaintiff purporting to be a member of the Leach Class. The Company has opposed a recent filing by that plaintiff seeking to have the matter transferred to the Ohio federal court MDL. State of Ohio In February 2018, the State of Ohio initiated litigation against EID regarding historical PFOA emissions from the Washington Works site. Chemours is an additional named defendant. Ohio alleges damage to natural resources and fraudulent transfer in the spin-off that created Chemours and seeks damages including remediation and other costs and punitive damages. PFAS EID and Chemours have received governmental and regulatory inquiries and have been named in other litigations, including class actions, brought by individuals, municipalities, businesses, and water districts alleging exposure to and/or contamination from PFAS, including PFOA. Many actions include an allegation of fraudulent transfer in the spin-off that created Chemours. Chemours has declined EID’s requests for indemnity for fraudulent transfer claims. Chemours has responded to letters and inquiries from governmental law enforcement entities regarding PFAS, including in January 2020, a letter informing it that the U.S. Department of Justice, Consumer Protection Branch, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are considering whether to open a criminal investigation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and asking that it retain its documents regarding PFAS and food contact applications. In July 2020, Chemours received a grand jury subpoena for documents. In October 2022, the Company along with other entities received a Notice of Intent to Commence Litigation from the State of California pursuant to its investigation relating to PFAS manufacturing, marketing, sale and disposal. The Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or result of any potential governmental, criminal, or civil proceeding that may result, the imposition of fines and penalties, and/or other remedies. The Company is also unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any. Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina For information regarding the Company’s ongoing litigation and environmental remediation matters at Fayetteville, refer to “Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina” under the “Environmental Overview” within this “Note 16 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”. Aqueous Film Forming Foam Matters Chemours does not, and has never, manufactured nor sold aqueous film forming foam (“AFFF”). Numerous defendants, including EID and Chemours have been named in approximately 3,100 matters, involving AFFF, which is used to extinguish hydrocarbon-based (i.e., Class B) fires and subject to U.S. military specifications. Most matters have been transferred to or filed directly into a multi-district litigation (“AFFF MDL”) in South Carolina federal court or identified by a party for transfer. The matters pending in the AFFF MDL allege damages as a result of contamination, in most cases due to migration from military installations or airports, or personal injury from exposure to AFFF. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for investigating, monitoring, remediating, treating, and otherwise responding to the contamination. Others have claims for personal injury, property diminution, and punitive damages. In March 2021, ten water provider cases within the AFFF MDL were approved by the court for purposes of commencing initial discovery (Tier One discovery) and in October 2021, the court approved three of these cases for additional discovery (Tier Two discovery). In September 2022, a water provider action filed by the City of Stuart, Florida was selected for the first bellwether trial and will be called for jury selection and/or trial on or after June 5, 2023. The court has encouraged all parties to discuss resolution of the water provider category of cases. Consistent with the court’s instruction and under the mutual obligations of the MOU, Chemours, Corteva/EID and DuPont, together, are engaged with Plaintiffs’ Counsel on these cases. There are AFFF lawsuits pending outside the AFFF MDL that have not been designated by a party for inclusion in the MDL. These matters identifying EID and/or Chemours as a defendant are: Valero Refining (“Valero”) has five pending state court lawsuits filed commencing in June 2019 regarding its Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, California, and Louisiana facilities. These lawsuits allege that several defendants that designed, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold AFFF or PFAS incorporated into AFFF have caused Valero to incur damages and costs including remediation, AFFF disposal, and replacement. Valero also alleges fraudulent transfer. In New York, four individuals filed a lawsuit against numerous defendants including Chemours. The lawsuit alleges personal injury resulting from exposure to AFFF in Long Island drinking water and violation of New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and medical monitoring. In Texas, a lawsuit was filed against numerous defendants including Chemours, DuPont and Corteva. The lawsuit alleges personal injury from occupational exposure to AFFF. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In the first quarter of 2022, certain defendants including Chemours, DuPont and Corteva were dismissed. In Illinois, a lawsuit was filed in May 2022 in the state court against numerous defendants, including EID. The lawsuit alleges personal injury from occupational exposure, including from AFFF-related materials/products, and seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages. Chemours is not a named defendant. State Natural Resource Damages Matters In addition to the State of New Jersey actions (as detailed below) and the State of Ohio action (as detailed above), the states of Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Michigan, North Carolina, Mississippi, Alaska, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida and Wisconsin have filed lawsuits against defendants, including EID and Chemours, relating to the alleged contamination of state natural resources with PFAS compounds either from AFFF and/or other sources. These lawsuits seek damages including costs to investigate, clean up, restore, treat, monitor, or otherwise respond to contamination of natural resources and some include counts for fraudulent transfer. On July 13, 2021, Chemours, DuPont, Corteva, and EID entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Delaware to settle such potential claims, including for environmental releases or sales of products containing PFAS or other known contaminants. Under the agreement, in January 2022, the companies paid a total amount of $ 50 to the State of Delaware, which shall be utilized to fund a Natural Resources and Sustainability Trust (the “Trust”) to be used for environmental restoration and enhancement of resources, sampling and analysis, community environmental justice and equity grants, and other natural resource needs. Chemours contributed $ 25 to the settlement and the remaining $ 25 was divided between DuPont and Corteva which shall be treated as Qualified Spend under the MOU. If the companies enter into a proportionally similar agreement to settle or resolve claims of another state for PFAS-related natural resource damages, for an amount greater than $ 50 , the companies may be required to make one or more supplemental payment(s) directly to the Trust, with such payment(s) not to exceed $ 25 in the aggregate. At this time, the Company has concluded the probability of loss as to any supplemental payment(s) under the settlement agreement to be remote. Other PFAS Matters In New York courts, EID has been named in approximately 40 lawsuits, which are not part of the Leach class, brought by individual plaintiffs alleging negligence and other claims in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into drinking water against current and former owners and suppliers of a manufacturing facility in Hoosick Falls, New York. Two additional lawsuits have been filed by a business seeking to recover its losses and by nearby property owners and residents in a putative class action. The lawsuit filed by the business was dismissed, but the claims by the individual business owner were allowed to proceed. In September 2022, the Court certified the class action, and EID has filed a petition for review of the certification. The Town of Petersburgh in New York also filed suit in New York state court in August 2022 alleging defendants 3M, EID, and other defendants, are responsible for PFOA contamination of its municipal drinking water supply. The complaint alleges product liability claims, negligence, and trespass. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Furthermore, 13 Long Island water suppliers have filed lawsuits against several defendants including EID and Chemours alleging PFAS, PFOA, and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”) contamination through releases from industrial and manufacturing facilities and business locations where PFAS-contaminated water was used for irrigation and sites where consumer products were disposed. Claims vary between matters but include claims of personal injury alleging various disease conditions, product liability, negligence, nuisance, trespass and fraudulent transfer. All matters are seeking compensatory and punitive damages and, in certain cases, medical monitoring, declaratory and/or injunctive relief. In January 2022, Chemours filed a third-party claim for indemnity in connection with one of the Long Island water supplier matters. In New York and New Jersey, lawsuits were filed by Suez Water against several defendants, including EID and Chemours, alleging damages from PFAS releases into the environment, including PFOA and PFOS, that impacted water sources that the utilities use to provide water, as well as products liability, negligence, nuisance, and trespass. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in both matters. The motion was denied in the Suez Water New Jersey lawsuit in October 2021. In January 2022, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Suez New York lawsuit without prejudice and the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in February 2022. Following the filing of the second amended complaint in the Suez New York lawsuit, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In New Jersey, lawsuits were filed against several defendants including EID and Chemours. The lawsuits include ten lawsuits alleging that defendants are responsible for PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS, in groundwater and drinking water. In addition, seven lawsuits were filed alleging exposure to PFAS and other chemicals, including two lawsuits by parents on behalf of their adult children claiming pre-natal exposure, resulted in the children’s cognitive delays, neurological, genetic, and autoimmune conditions. Furthermore, nine additional lawsuits were filed in state court with similar allegations of personal injury, which have been removed to New Jersey federal court. Plaintiffs seek certain damages including punitive damages. In Georgia and Alabama, lawsuits were filed against numerous carpet manufacturers and suppliers and former suppliers, including EID and Chemours. The lawsuits include a matter filed by the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama and a matter filed by the City of Rome, Georgia alleging negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into a river leading to the town’s water source. Additionally, a putative class action was filed on behalf of customers of the Rome, Georgia water division and the Floyd County, Georgia water department alleging negligence and nuisance and related to the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into a river leading to their water sources. In Ohio, a putative class action (“Hardwick”) was filed against several defendants including 3M, EID and Chemours seeking class action status for U.S. residents having a detectable level of PFAS in their blood serum. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including the establishment of a “PFAS Science Panel”. In March 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s class certification and certified a class covering anyone subject to Ohio laws having minimal levels of PFOA plus at least one other PFAS in their blood. The court requested further briefing on whether the class should be extended to include other states that recognize the claims for relief filed in the action. The defendants, including EID and Chemours, jointly filed a petition to appeal the class certification decision and in September 2022 the petition was granted and appellate review will proceed. Defendants will continue to defend at the trial court level while this appeal is pending. Management believes that a loss is reasonably possible as to the Hardwick matter, but not estimable at this time given the significant class issues to be resolved and that this matter is entering the discovery phase. In California, several lawsuits were filed in state court against several defendants, including EID and Chemours. The complaints allege product liability, negligence, nuisance and trespass. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including ab |
