| Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Note 17. 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. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. 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. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and whether an exposure is reasonably estimable. The Company’s judgments are subjective based on the status of the legal or regulatory proceedings, the merits of the Company’s defenses and consultation with in-house and outside legal counsel. Because of uncertainties related to these matters, accruals are based on the best information available at the time, including, among others, settlement agreements. As additional information becomes available, the Company reassesses the potential liability related to pending claims and litigation and may revise its estimates accordingly. Due to the inherent uncertainties of the legal and regulatory process in the multiple jurisdictions in which Chemours operates, management’s judgments may be materially different than the actual outcomes. Legal costs such as outside counsel fees and expenses are charged to expense in the period services are rendered. 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, 2023 and December 31, 2022.
September 30, 2023 December 31, 2022
Asbestos $ 35 $ 35
PFOA (1) 49 45
PFAS (2) 633 2
All other matters 7 14
Total accrued litigation $ 724 $ 96 (1) PFOA includes matters under the "PFOA" section within this "Note 17 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities". (2) PFAS includes matters under the "PFAS" section within this "Note 17 - 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, 2023 and December 31, 2022.
Balance Sheet Location September 30, 2023 December 31, 2022
Accrued Litigation:
Current accrued litigation Other accrued liabilities (Note 14) $ 658 $ 41
Long-term accrued litigation Other liabilities (Note 16) 66 55
Total accrued litigation $ 724 $ 96 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 , of which approximately $ 2,300 is available after consideration of the funding of the Water District Settlement Fund (discussed below). 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 $ 35 and $ 112 during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2023 , respectively, and $ 44 and $ 108 during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022, 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 $ 100 into the escrow account in Sep tember 2022 and in 2021, which is recognized as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents on its consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2022 . 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. In September 2023, the parties entered into a supplemental agreement to the MOU, whereby i) the parties agreed to release the funds held in escrow to fund, in part, the Water District Settlement Fund (discussed further below), ii) waive the escrow funding obligation of each party due no later than September 30, 2023, and iii) with respect to the escrow funding obligation due no later than September 30, 2024, will be waived by each of the parties under certain conditions as agreed to by the parties. 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, 2023 and December 31, 2022 , there were approximately 900 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, 2023 and December 31, 2022 , Chemours had accruals of $ 35 related to these matters. Benzene In the Separation, EID assigned its benzene docket to Chemours. At September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022 , there were 17 and 18 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 polymerization 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 polymerization 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, 2023 and December 31, 2022 , Chemours maintained an accrual of $ 26 and $ 25 , respectively, 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, 2023 , 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 $ 26 and $ 25 accrued at September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively. 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 17 – 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 matter not included in the 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 . EID appealed the verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and, in December 2022, the 6th Circuit affirmed the verdict in a two-to-one decision, with one judge dissenting on two grounds including the district court’s grant of collateral estoppel. In January 2023, EID petitioned for a rehearing of the appeal by the 6th Circuit en banc, which was denied in February 2023. EID has petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the decision. The outcome of such petition is not determinable at this time and has significant uncertainties. Given the current status of this case and the significant uncertainties, the Company has a reserve for potential loss, on this matter of $ 20 at September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, representing Chemours’ share of the verdict under the terms of the MOU and in accordance with accounting guidance on obligations resulting from joint and several liability arrangements. The Company has reserved for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. In December 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML) declined to close the Ohio MDL. As of September 30, 2023, 23 plaintiffs purporting to be Leach class members have filed personal injury cases and these matters are expected to proceed in the Ohio 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. The parties are engaged in ongoing settlement discussions related to this matter. 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. 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 17 – 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 5,400 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. The court encouraged all parties to discuss resolution of the water provider category of cases, and in October 2022 appointed a mediator to facilitate discussions among and between the parties. Consistent with the court’s instruction and under the mutual obligations of the MOU, Chemours, Corteva/EID and DuPont, together, engaged with Plaintiffs’ Counsel on these cases, including through the court-appointed mediation. Prior to the public water system class action suit settlement discussed below, in May 2023, the Plaintiffs filed, and the court granted, a motion to sever all claims against Chemours and EID from the first bellwether trial for the water provider cases. For non-water provider cases in the AFFF MDL, the parties will now proceed with Tier One discovery on 28 personal injury cases, with those cases to be identified in December 2023. There are other 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 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. In July 2023, an agreement to resolve the lawsuit was reached. This matter is now closed. In February 2023, a separate lawsuit was filed in the state court against numerous defendants, including EID, which also 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 in either of these lawsuits. In Ontario, Canada, three lawsuits were filed by two parties in December 2022, against DuPont de Nemours, Inc. and another defendant, seeking contribution and indemnification, interest, and costs in connection with three underlying actions filed by property owners in Canada, and a related third-party action filed by some defendants in one of the matters. The plaintiffs in the underlying actions allege PFAS contamination of their respective properties from the use of firefighting foam. Chemours is not a named defendant in any of these matters but has agreed to defend pursuant to the MOU. These lawsuits against DuPont were noticed for discontinuance by one of the filing parties. United States Public Water System Class Action Suit Settlement On June 1, 2023, Chemours, Corteva/EID, and DuPont, together, entered into a binding agreement in principle to comprehensively resolve all drinking water claims related to PFAS of a defined class of U.S. public water systems that serve the vast majority of the United States population arising out of the AFFF MDL, that was finalized by a definitive agreement on June 30, 2023 (the "Settlement Agreement"), subject to approval by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (the “Court”). A preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Court was granted on August 22, 2023. Under the Settlement Agreement, Chemours, Corteva and DuPont collectively established and contributed a total of $ 1,185 to a qualified settlement fund (“Water District Settlement Fund”). Contribution rates were consistent with the MOU, with Chemours (together with its subsidiaries) contributing 50 %, and DuPont and Corteva collectively (together with their subsidiaries) contributing the remaining 50 %. The settlement amounts were funded in full and deposited into the Water District Settlement Fund within ten business days following preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court. On September 6, 2023, Chemours deposited $ 592 into the Water District Settlement Fund, which is recognized as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents on its consolidated balance sheet at September 30, 2023 as Chemours maintains a proportional reversionary interest to the underlying restricted cash equivalents in the Water District Settlement Fund. In exchange for the payment to the Water District Settlement Fund, Chemours, Corteva and DuPont (together with their subsidiaries) will receive a release of the claims from the Class (as defined below), upon entry into final judgment by the Court in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The agreement was entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or fault by Chemours or the other parties. The class represented in the Settlement Agreement is composed of all Public Water Systems, as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 300f, with a current detection of PFAS or that are currently required to monitor for PFAS under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule or other applicable federal or state law (the “Class”). The following systems are excluded from the settlement class: water systems owned and operated by a State or the United States government; small systems that have not detected the presence of PFAS and are not currently required to monitor for it under federal or state requirements; and water systems in the lower Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina (which are included only if they so request). PFAS, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, includes PFOA and HFPO-DA among a broad range of fluorinated organic substances. While it is reasonably possible that the excluded systems or claims could result in additional future lawsuits, claims, assessments or proceedings, it is not possible to predict the outcome of any such matters, and as such, the Company is unable to develop an estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any, at this time. The Settlement Agreement does not resolve claims of Public Water Systems that are not included in the settlement as described above, or of Public Water Systems that request exclusion from the Class (“opt out”) pursuant to the process established by the Court. It also does not resolve potential future claims of Public Water Systems that have not detected and do not detect any PFAS contamination, but where such contamination first occurs in the future. The Settlement Agreement also does not resolve certain claims not related to drinking water, such as certain specified separate alleged claims relating to stormwater or wastewater treatment, or other alleged types of claims such as for personal injury or for natural resource damages claimed by state attorneys general, that remain outstanding in the AFFF MDL or other courts. Matters related to claims from other public water systems, state natural resources damages and other PFAS matters are further described below. As part of the preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement in August 2023, notice of the Settlement Agreement has been provided to class members and such members have until November 11, 2023 to object to the settlement or December 4, 2023 to submit a request for exclusion, indicating they wish to opt-out of the settlement class. The Companies can then determine whether to exercise their walk-away right. A Final Fairness Hearing on the Settlement Agreement is scheduled for December 14, 2023. Opt out notices or other inquiries have been received from certain water utilities, including some in the litigation identified below. While it is reasonably possible that claims from such utilities could result in additional future lawsuits, assessments or proceedings, unless provided herein, it is not possible to predict the outcome of any such matters due to various reasons including, among others, future actions and decisions relating to the Settlement Agreement and factual and legal issues to be resolved with individual water utilities. As such, the Company is unable |
