| Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Note 19. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Litigation In addition to the matters discussed below, 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 DuPont prior to the separation, is subject to or required under the separation-related agreements executed prior to the separation to indemnify DuPont against various pending legal proceedings. It is not possible to predict the outcomes of these various lawsuits, claims, assessments, or proceedings. 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. Additional disputes between Chemours and DuPont may also arise with respect to indemnification matters, including disputes based on matters of law or contract interpretation. If and to the extent these 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. 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 liabilities 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 June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018.
June 30, 2019
December 31, 2018
Asbestos
$
37
$
37
Perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt
22
22
GenX and other perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds (1)
56
65
All other matters (2)
5
5
Total accrued litigation
$
120
$
129
(1)
Total accruals related to this matter amounted to $87 and $75 at June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. These amounts included $31 and $10, which are reflected as a component of the Company’s environmental remediation liabilities at June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively.
(2)
Includes liabilities related to miscellaneous litigation matters, including Benzene. The Company had accruals related to Benzene of less than $1 at June 30, 2019. The Company had no accruals related to Benzene at December 31, 2018. The following table sets forth the current and long-term components of the Company’s accrued litigation and their balance sheet locations at June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018.
Balance Sheet Location
June 30, 2019
December 31, 2018
Accrued Litigation:
Current accrued litigation
Other accrued liabilities (Note 16)
$
32
$
76
Long-term accrued litigation
Other liabilities (Note 18)
88
53
Total accrued litigation
$
120
$
129
Asbestos In the separation, DuPont assigned its asbestos docket to Chemours. At June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, there were approximately 1,300 lawsuits pending against DuPont alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. 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 DuPont employees or household members of contractors or DuPont employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to DuPont products. At June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Chemours had an accrual of $37 related to these matters. Benzene In the separation, DuPont assigned its benzene docket to Chemours. At June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, there were 19 cases pending against DuPont alleging benzene-related illnesses. These cases consist of premises matters involving contractors and deceased former employees who claim exposure to benzene while working at DuPont 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 DuPont products such as paints, thinners, and reducers. Management believes that a loss is reasonably possible as to the docket as a whole; however, given that 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. PFOA Prior to the fourth quarter of 2014, the performance chemicals segment of DuPont made “PFOA” (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt) at its Fayetteville, North Carolina plant 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. Chemours maintained accruals of $22 related to the PFOA matters discussed below at June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018. These accruals relate to DuPont’s obligations under agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and voluntary commitments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJ DEP”). These obligations and voluntary commitments include surveying, sampling, and testing drinking water in and around certain Company sites offering treatment or an alternative supply of drinking water if tests indicate the presence of PFOA in drinking water at or greater than the state or the national health advisory. The Company will continue to work with the EPA regarding the extent of work that may be required with respect to these matters. Leach Settlement In 2004, DuPont settled a class action captioned Leach v. DuPont 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, DuPont 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. As of June 30, 2019, approximately $1.7 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, DuPont 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 $22 accrued for these matters at June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018. PFOA Leach Class Personal Injury Further, under the Leach settlement, class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont 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 DuPont 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 (“MDL Settlement”) for $670.7 in cash, with half paid by Chemours, and half paid by DuPont. Concurrently with the MDL Settlement, DuPont and Chemours agreed to a limited sharing of potential future PFOA costs (indemnifiable losses, as defined in the separation agreement between DuPont and Chemours) for a period of five years. During that five-year period, Chemours will annually pay future PFOA costs up to $25 and, if such amount is exceeded, DuPont will pay any excess amount up to the next $25 (which payment will not be subject to indemnification by Chemours), with Chemours annually bearing any further excess costs under the terms of the separation agreement. After the five-year period, this limited sharing agreement will expire, and Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the separation agreement will continue unchanged. Chemours has also agreed that it will not contest its indemnification obligations to DuPont under the separation agreement for PFOA costs on the basis of ostensible defenses generally applicable to the indemnification provisions under the separation agreement, including defenses relating to punitive damages, fines or penalties, or attorneys’ fees, and waives any such defenses with respect to PFOA costs. Chemours has, however, retained other defenses, including as to whether any particular PFOA claim is within the scope of the indemnification provisions of the separation agreement. While all MDL lawsuits were dismissed or resolved through the MDL Settlement, the 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. Since the resolution of the MDL, approximately 57 personal injury cases have been filed and are pending in West Virginia or Ohio courts alleging status as a Leach class member. These cases are consolidated before the MDL court with trials for individual plaintiffs scheduled in October 2019 and January 2020, and for six plaintiffs in June 2020. State of Ohio In February 2018, the State of Ohio initiated litigation against DuPont regarding historical PFOA emissions from the Washington Works site. Chemours is an additional named defendant. Ohio alleges damage to natural resources and seeks damages including remediation and other costs and punitive damages. PFAS DuPont and Chemours have been named in other litigations brought by individuals, water districts, businesses, and a putative national medical monitoring putative class action alleging exposure to and/or contamination from perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds (“PFAS”), including PFOA. Aqueous Film Forming Foam Matters DuPont and Chemours have been named in 15 matters, brought by plaintiffs other than states, involving aqueous film forming foam (“AFFF”), which is used to extinguish hydrocarbon-based (i.e., Class B) fires and subject to U.S. military specifications. Some matters have been transferred to a multidistrict litigation (“AFFF MDL”) in South Carolina federal court. In February 2019, two commercial dairy farms near Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico filed lawsuits in federal court in New Mexico against DuPont and Chemours, as well as against several manufacturers of AFFF. These cases allege that decades of use of AFFF for firefighting practice at the nearby Air Force base contaminated the groundwater, the aquifer, and the property with PFAS, including PFOA and “PFOS” (perfluorooctane sulfonic acid) and threatens their milk and crop production. These cases allege that DuPont and Chemours manufactured AFFF and its non-defined “constituents.” Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for investigating, monitoring, remediating, treating, and otherwise responding to the contamination, and punitive damages. Also in February 2019, the City of Dayton, Ohio (“City”) filed an amended complaint to add DuPont and Chemours as defendants to a lawsuit filed in Ohio federal court against numerous AFFF manufacturers. The City alleges that decades of AFFF use in firefighting practice at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio and at the City’s own firefighting practice center contaminated the drinking water supply. The City alleges that DuPont and Chemours manufactured AFFF and its non-defined “constituents.” The City seeks to recover damages for investigating, monitoring, remediating, treating, and otherwise responding to the PFAS contamination and punitive damages. The case was transferred to the AFFF MDL. In April 2019, the Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority filed a complaint in New Jersey federal court against AFFF manufacturers, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), DuPont, and Chemours regarding use of AFFF at William J. Hughes Technical Center in New Jersey, an FAA-owned site. Plaintiffs allege that DuPont manufactured, marketed, sold, or otherwise promoted the use of AFFF and that Chemours is responsible for sharing DuPont liabilities. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages including clean-up costs, compensatory, and punitive damages regarding contamination of its drinking water wells. In May 2019, two individuals formerly employed as firefighters at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Belle Chase, Louisiana filed personal injury cases against numerous defendants who allegedly designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, trained users, produced instructional materials, sold , or otherwise handled or used AFFF. These lawsuits were filed directly into the AFFF MDL. In May 2019, two putative class actions were filed in federal courts in Michigan and New Hampshire seeking class status for individuals who have lived or worked on the former Pease Air Force Base and Wurtsmith Air Force Base who consumed public water. The lawsuits are filed against several defendants alleged to have designed, manufactured, and sold AFFF and/or PFAS constituents of AFFF. Plaintiffs seek damages including medical monitoring. Valero Refining (“Valero”) filed four state court lawsuits in June 2019 regarding its Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and California 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 DuPont’s spin-off that created Chemours. In June 2019, the County of Dutchess, New York filed a putative class action on behalf of other state water suppliers having any detectable amounts of PFOA and/or PFOS in their water supply. The matter was filed directly into the AFFF MDL against numerous defendants who allegedly designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF. Plaintiffs seek damages including treatment, extending and/or modifying systems, and testing. In June and July 2019, the City of Sioux Falls and Sioux Falls Regional Airport filed complaints directly into the AFFF MDL against numerous defendants who allegedly manufactured, distributed, and/or sold AFFF seeking damages for contamination to land, water, and structures. The plaintiff also alleges fraudulent transfer in DuPont’s spin-off that created Chemours and seeks damages for costs including investigation, remediation, disposal monitoring, and punitive damages. 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 and New Hampshire have each filed two lawsuits against defendants, including DuPont and Chemours, relating to the alleged contamination of state natural resources with PFAS compounds. These lawsuits seek damages including costs to investigate, clean up, restore, treat, monitor, or otherwise respond to contamination to natural resources. Each state has filed one lawsuit against 3M Company (“3M”), DuPont, and Chemours generally alleging widespread contamination of the state’s natural resources with PFAS and damaging the value and use of natural resources as well as injuring citizens of the states. The second lawsuit filed by each state is against alleged manufacturers of AFFF, including DuPont and Chemours. This second action generally demands that the defendants pay for all costs to respond to contamination of the state’s property and resources and other damages. All these lawsuits include counts for fraudulent transfer, either under state law or uniform acts, relating to DuPont’s spin-off that created Chemours. Other PFAS Matters DuPont has also been named in approximately 49 lawsuits pending in New York courts, 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, and seeking medical monitoring, compensatory, and punitive damages against current and former owners and suppliers of a manufacturing facility in Hoosick Falls, New York. The Company has been included as a named defendant in seven of these lawsuits. Two other lawsuits in New York have been filed by a business seeking to recover its losses and by nearby property owners and residents in a putative class action seeking medical monitoring, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief. In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama filed suit against numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia and suppliers and former suppliers, including DuPont, in Alabama state court. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into a river leading to the town’s water source, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2018, the New Jersey-American Water Company, Inc. (“NJAW”) filed suit against DuPont and Chemours in New Jersey federal court alleging that discharges in violation of the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (“Spill Act”), were made into groundwater utilized in the NJAW Penns Grove water system. NJAW alleges that damages include costs associated with remediating, operating, and maintaining its system, and attorney fees. In October 2018, a putative class action was filed i n Ohio federal court against 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and other defendants 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 December 2018, the owners of a dairy farm filed a lawsuit in Maine state court against numerous defendants including DuPont and Chemours alleging that their dairy farm was contaminated by PFAS, including PFOS and PFOA present in treated municipal sewer sludge used in agricultural spreading applications on their farm. The complaint asserts negligence, trespass, and other tort and state statutory claims and seeks damages. In January 2019, the Town of East Hampton, New York (“Town”) filed a lawsuit against DuPont, Chemours, and numerous other defendants in New York state court alleging that it has and will incur costs for assessment, remediation, and response to address PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS in drinking water and the environment. As to DuPont and Chemours, the Town alleges that PFOA and/or PFOS washed from clothing or cleaning supplies to cesspools and then subsurface water. In addition to cost recovery, the Town seeks natural resource damages, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Other defendants, identified as manufacturers of AFFF, transferred the case to the AFFF MDL. In February 2019, the Ridgewood City Water Department (“Ridgewood Water”), a public water supplier in Bergen County, New Jersey filed a lawsuit in New Jersey state court against DuPont, Chemours, and numerous other defendants. As to DuPont and Chemours, Ridgewood Water alleges that “PTFE” (polytetrafluoroethylene fluoropolymers) is one of the sources of alleged PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS. Ridgewood Water seeks declaratory relief requiring defendants to pay for assessment, remediation, and response costs, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. In May 2019, a putative class action was filed in Delaware state court against two electroplating companies alleging that they are responsible for PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS, in drinking water and the environment in the nearby community. The suit also names 3M, DuPont and Chemours, asserting they sold PFAS containing materials to the electroplating companies. The putative class of residents alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass and other claims and seeks medical monitoring, personal injury and property damages, and punitive damages. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Directives and Litigation In March 2019, the NJ DEP issued two Directives and filed four lawsuits against Chemours and other defendants. The Directives are: (i) a state-wide PFAS Directive issued to DuPont, DowDuPont, DuPont Specialty Products USA (“DuPont SP USA”), Solvay S.A., 3M and Chemours seeking a meeting to discuss future costs for PFAS related costs incurred by the NJ DEP and establishing a funding source for such costs by the Directive recipients, and information relating to historic and current use of certain PFAS compounds; and, (ii) a Pompton Lakes Natural Resources Damages (“NRD”) Directive to DuPont and Chemours demanding $0.1 to cover the cost of preparation of a natural resource damage assessment plan and access to related documents. The lawsuits filed in New Jersey state courts by the NJ DEP are: (i) in Salem County, against DuPont, 3M, and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, the Water Pollution Control Act (“WPCA”), the Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”), and common law regarding past and present operations at Chambers Works, a site assigned to Chemours at separation ; DuPont requested that Chemours defend and indemnify it in these matters. Chemours has accepted the defense while reserving rights and declining DuPont’s demand as to matters under ISRA, fraudulent transfer or involving other DuPont entities. PFOA and PFAS Summary Management believes that it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses related to PFOA and/or PFAS matters in excess of amounts accrued, but any such losses are not estimable at this time due to various reasons, including, among others, that such matters are in their early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved. U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc. There are six lawsuits, including one putative class action, pending against DuPont by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana. Several of the lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for DuPont environmental liabilities. The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages, property diminution, and damages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA,” often referred to as “Superfund”). At separation, DuPont assigned Chemours its former plant site, which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund area, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at the Superfund site. Management believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among others, that such matters are in their early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved. GenX and Other Perfluorinated and Polyfluorinated Compounds At its Fayetteville, North Carolina facility, the Company continues to capture and separately dispose of process waste water containing the polymerization processing aid hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (“HFPO Dimer Acid,” sometimes referred to as “GenX” or “C3 Dimer Acid”) and other perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds. The Company believes that discharges to the Cape Fear River, site surface water, groundwater, and air emissions have not impacted the safety of drinking water in North Carolina and is cooperating with a variety of ongoing inquiries and investigations from federal, state, and local authorities, regulators, and other governmental entities. Government inquiries include an investigation regarding PFAS chemicals (including GenX) initiated in July 2019 by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on the Environment and an ongoing investigation into releases from the Fayetteville site being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina and the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. In September 2017, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (“NC DEQ”) issued a 60-day notice of intent to suspend the permit for the Fayetteville facility and the State of North Carolina filed an action in North Carolina state court regarding the discharges seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as other relief, including abatement and site correction. A partial Consent Order was entered partially resolving the State’s action in return for the Company’s agreement to continue and supplement the voluntary waste water disposal measures it had previously commenced and to provide certain information. In November 2017, the NC DEQ informed the Company that it was suspending the process waste water discharge permit for the Fayetteville facility. The Company thereafter commenced the capture and separate disposal of all process waste water from the Fayetteville facility related to the Company’s own operations. In addition, in June 2018, the North Carolina Legislature enacted legislation (i) granting the governor the authority, in certain circumstances, to require a facility with unauthorized PFAS discharges to cease operations, and (ii) granting the governor the authority, in certain circumstances, to direct the NC DEQ secretary to order a PFAS discharger to establish permanent replacement water supplies for parties whose water was contaminated by the discharge. On July 13, 2018, Cape Fear River Watch (“CFRW”), a non-profit organization, sued the NC DEQ in North Carolina state court, seeking to require the NC DEQ to take additional actions as to the Fayetteville facility. On August 29, 2018, CFRW sued the Company in North Carolina federal court for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and penalties. On February 25, 2019, the North Carolina Superior Court for Bladen County approved a Consent Order between NC DEQ and the Company resolving the State’s and CFRW’s lawsuits and other matters (including issues regarding the legislation referenced above and Notices of Violation (“NOVs”) issued by the State) and litigation brought by CFRW. Under its terms, Chemours paid $13 in March 2019 to cover a civil penalty and investigative costs and continues to take additional actions to address site surface water, groundwater, and air emissions, including installing technology to abate future emissions by specified dates and meeting specified emissions reductions (with stipulated penalties for failures to do so). In connection with the approved Consent Order, the Company accrued an additional $7 during the second quarter of 2019 and had total accrued liabilities of $87 for this matter at June 30, 2019, of which, $56 is treated as accrued litigation costs. The Company’s estimated liability is based on management’s assessment of the current facts and circumstances for this matter, which are subject to various assumptions that include, but are not limited to, the number of affected properties, the type of water treatment system required, the cost of proposed water treatment systems and any related operation, maintenance, and monitoring (“OM&M”) requirements, assessed fines and penalties, and other charges contemplated by the Consent Order. In February 2019, the Company received an NOV from the EPA alleging certain TSCA violations at its Fayetteville site. Matters raised in the NOV could have the potential to affect operations at the Fayetteville site. The Company responded to the EPA in March 2019 asserting that the Company has not violated environmental laws. At this time, management does not believe that a loss is probable related to the matters in this NOV. It is also possible that issues relating to site discharges could result in further litigation or regulatory demands with regard to the Fayetteville facility, including potential permit modifications. If such issues arise, if the Consent Order is modified, or as implementation of the obligations under the Consent Order proceed, an additional loss is reasonably possible but not estimable at this time. The Company has responded to grand jury subpoenas, produced witnesses before a grand jury and for interviews with government investigators and attorneys, and met with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Nor th Carolina and the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding their investigation into a potential violation of the CWA . Although the Company is not able at this point to predict the outcome of that investigation, it is reasonably possible that it could result in a criminal or civil proceeding, the imposition of fines and penalties, and/or other remedies. Civil actions have been filed against DuPont and Chemours in North Carolina federal court relating to discharges from the Fayetteville site. These actions include a consolidated action brought by public water suppliers seeking damages and injunctive relief, a consolidated purported class action seeking medical monitoring, and property damage and/or other monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of the putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or that draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River, and an action by private well owners seeking compensatory and punitive damages. It is possible that additional litigation may be filed against the Company and/or DuPont concerning the discharges. Ruling on the Company’s motions in April 2019, the court dismissed the medical monitoring, injunctive demand, and many other alleged causes of actions in these lawsuits. It is not possible at this point to predict the timing, course, or outcome of all governmental and regulatory inquiries and notices and litigation, and it is possible that these matters could materially affect the Company’s financial results and operations. In addition, local communities, organizations, and federal and state regulatory agencies have raised questions concerning HFPO Dimer Acid and other perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds at certain other manufacturing sites operated by the Company, and it is possible that similar developments to those described above and centering on the Fayetteville site could arise in other locations. Mining Solutions Facility Construction Stoppage In March 2018, a civil association in Mexico filed a complaint against the government authorities involved in the permitting process of the Company’s new Mining Solutions facility under construction in Gomez Palacio, Durango, Mexico. The claimant sought and obtained a suspension from the district judge to stop the Company’s construction work while the claim is studied and reviewed. Chemours, as the third-party affected, has filed an appeal. The Company has declared force majeure with its vendors while plant construction is idled. Chemours’ project permits fully comply with the laws and regulations at the federal, state, and municipal levels, and the Company is working with local and federal authorities, along with community leaders, to address the complaint. Management determined that these delays represented a trigger event, which required approximately $140 long-lived assets under construction at the facility and approximately $50 of the Company’s Mining Solutions reporting unit’s goodwill to be tested for impairment at June 30, 2019. No impairments were noted as a result of |
