| Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Note 22. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Asset Retirement Obligations Chemours has recorded asset retirement obligations, which are inclusive of costs related to closure, reclamation, and removal for mining operations in the production of TiO 2 The following table sets forth the activity in the Company’s asset retirement obligations for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019.
Year Ended December 31,
2020
2019
Balance at January 1,
$
76
$
66
Obligations incurred or acquired
12
5
(Decrease) increase in estimated cash outflows
(14
)
4
Accretion expense
4
4
Settlements and payments
(2
)
(3
)
Balance at December 31,
$
76
$
76
Current portion
$
13
$
7
Non-current portion
63
69
Litigation Overview 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 EID prior to 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. It is not possible to predict the outcomes of these various lawsuits, claims, assessments, or 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. 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. In January 2021, Chemours, DuPont, Corteva, and EID, a subsidiary of Corteva, entered into a binding Memorandum of Understanding (the “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. 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. 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 pending 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. In order to support and manage the payments for potential future PFAS liabilities, the parties have also agreed to establish an escrow account. 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 (excluding 2021). 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 on its consolidated balance sheets. 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 prior to February 28, 2021. 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, we do not record a liability, but instead disclose the nature of the matter and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, to the extent such estimate can be made. The following table sets forth the components of the Company’s accrued litigation at December 31, 2020 and 2019.
December 31,
2020
2019
Asbestos
$
34
$
34
PFOA (1)
50
20
All other matters
4
6
Total accrued litigation
$
88
$
60
(1)
At December 31, 2020, PFOA includes $29 associated with the Company’s portion of the costs to settle PFOA multi-district litigation in Ohio. The following table sets forth the current and long-term components of the Company’s accrued litigation and their balance sheet locations at December 31, 2020 and 2019.
December 31,
Balance Sheet Location
2020
2019
Accrued Litigation:
Current accrued litigation (1)
Other accrued liabilities (Note 19)
$
37
$
10
Long-term accrued litigation
Other liabilities (Note 21)
51
50
Total accrued litigation
$
88
$
60
(1)
At December 31, 2020, current accrued litigation includes $29 associated with the Company’s portion of the costs to settle PFOA multi-district litigation in Ohio. Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina For information regarding the Company’s ongoing litigation and environmental remediation matters at its Fayetteville Works site in Fayetteville, North Carolina (“Fayetteville”), refer to “Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina” under the “Environmental Overview” within this “Note 22 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”. Asbestos In the Separation, EID assigned its asbestos docket to Chemours. At December 31, 2020 and 2019, there were approximately 1,100 At December 31, 2020 and 2019, Chemours had an accrual of $34 Benzene In the Separation, EID assigned its benzene docket to Chemours. At December 31, 2020 and 2019, there were 17 and 16 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. PFOA Chemours does not, and has never, used “PFOA” (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt) as a polymer processing aid and/or sold it as a commercial product. Prior to the Separation, the performance chemicals segment of EID made PFOA at 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 December 31, 2020 and 2019, Chemours maintained accruals of $21 and $20, respectively, related to PFOA matters under the Leach Settlement, EID’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, 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 state or the national health advisory. The Company will continue to work with the EPA 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 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. As of December 31, 2020, 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, 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 $21 and $20 was accrued for these matters at December 31, 2020 and 2019, 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. During that five-year period, Chemours would annually pay future PFOA costs up to $25 and, if such amount was exceeded, EID would 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 would expire, and Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the Separation Agreement would continue unchanged. Chemours also agreed that it would not contest its indemnification obligations to EID under the Separation Agreement for PFOA costs on the basis of defenses generally applicable to the indemnification provisions under the Separation Agreement, including defenses relating to punitive damages, fines or penalties, or attorneys’ fees, and waived any such defenses with respect to PFOA costs. Chemours, however, retained other defenses, including as to whether any particular PFOA claim was within the scope of the indemnification provisions of the Separation Agreement. The cost-sharing agreement entered concurrently with the First MDL Settlement has been superseded by the binding MOU addressing certain PFAS matters and costs as detailed in “Note 22 – 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 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 filed and pending cases, as well as additional pre-suit claims, under which those cases and claims of settling plaintiffs will be resolved for approximately $83 (the “Second MDL Settlement”). Chemours will contribute approximately $29, and DuPont and Corteva will each contribute approximately $27 to the Second MDL Settlement. At December 31, 2020, Chemours has accrued approximately $29 associated with this matter, which it will pay once the settlements are finalized. The settlements are expected to be finalized in the first quarter of 2021. The single matter not included in the Second MDL Settlement is a testicular cancer case tried in March 2020 to a verdict of 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. We are 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. We are also unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any. Aqueous Film Forming Foam Matters Chemours does not, and has never, manufactured aqueous film forming foam (“AFFF”). Numerous defendants, including EID and Chemours, have been named in approximately 900 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. 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 September 2019, a lawsuit alleging personal injury resulting from exposure to AFFF in Long Island drinking water was filed by four individuals in New York state court. 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, New Hampshire, New York, Michigan, North Carolina, and Mississippi 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 to natural resources. The lawsuits include counts for fraudulent transfer. Other PFAS Matters EID has also been named in approximately 50 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. 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 EID, 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 EID 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 2020, this matter was transferred to the AFFF MDL. In October 2018, a putative class action was filed in Ohio federal court against 3M, EID, 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 EID and Chemours alleging that their dairy farm was contaminated by PFAS, including perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“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 May 2019, a putative class action was filed in Delaware state court against two electroplating companies , 3M and EID , alleging responsibility for PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS, in drinking water and the environment in the nearby community. Although initially named in the lawsuit, Chemours was subsequently dismissed. The putative class of residents alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, and other claims and seeks medical monitoring, personal injury and property damages, and punitive damages. The matter was removed to federal court. Since August 2019, 11 Long Island water suppliers have filed lawsuits in New York federal court against defendants including EID and Chemours regarding alleged PFAS, PFOA, and PFOS contamination through releases from industrial and manufacturing facilities and business locations where PFAS-contaminated water was used for irrigation and Since November 2019, two lawsuits representing approximately 35 residents have been filed against EID, Chemours, and other defendants alleging that they are responsible for PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS, in groundwater and drinking water. Plaintiffs have claims including medical monitoring, property value diminution, trespass, and punitive damages. The lawsuits are pending in New Jersey federal court. In November 2019, the City of Rome, Georgia filed suit against numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia, suppliers, EID, and Chemours in Georgia state court alleging negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into a river leading to the town’s water source. City of Rome alleges damages to property and lost profits, and expenses for abatement and remediation and punitive damages. In December 2019, a putative class action was filed in Georgia state court on behalf of customers of the Rome, Georgia water division and the Floyd County, Georgia water department against numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia, suppliers, EID, and Chemours in Georgia state court alleging negligence and nuisance and related to the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into a river leading to their water sources. The matter was removed to federal court. Damages sought include compensatory damages for increased water surcharges, as well as punitive damages and injunctive relief for abatement and remediation. In May 2020, the Weirton Area Water Board and City of Weirton, West Virginia, filed a lawsuit in West Virginia state court against defendants, including EID and Chemours, alleging PFAS, PFOA, and PFOS contamination through releases from the manufacture, sale, and use of PFAS and from facilities owned by AccelorMittal. Damages sought include declaratory relief, economic damages, indemnification, expenses, remediation, and punitive damages. The matter has been removed to federal court. In January 2021, this matter was transferred to the AFFF MDL. Since July 2020, three lawsuits have been filed in New Jersey federal court by parents of two adult children alleging that exposure to PFAS, including pre-natal exposure, resulted in the children’s cognitive delays, neurological, genetic, and autoimmune conditions. Plaintiffs claim compensatory and punitive damages. In September 2020, the Golden State Water Company filed a lawsuit in California federal court against several defendants, including EID and Chemours, alleging manufacturers of PFOA and PFOS are responsible for contaminating the drinking water supply. The complaint alleged products liability, negligence, nuisance, trespass, and fraudulent transfer. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. In January 2021, the court dismissed the complaint on defendants’ motion regarding jurisdiction grounds. In December 2020, Suez Water New Jersey and Suez Water New York filed lawsuits in New Jersey and New York federal courts against 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. The complaints allege products liability, negligence, nuisance, and trespass. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including present and future compliance costs for the respective state-adopted PFAS maximum contaminant levels for public water systems. In December 2020, 11 southern California public water systems filed a lawsuit in California federal court against several defendants, including EID and Chemours, alleging manufacturers of PFOA and PFOS are responsible for contaminating the drinking water supply. The complaint alleges products liability, negligence, nuisance, trespass, state law claims, and fraudulent transfer. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, as well as compensatory 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 EID, 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 EID 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 EID, 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 ; In August 2020, a Second Amended Complaint was filed in each matter, adding fraudulent transfer and other claims against DuPont SP USA, Corteva, and DuPont. For the Salem County matter, NJ DEP added claims relating to failure to comply with state directives, including the state-wide PFAS Directive. The matters were removed to federal court and consolidated for case management and pretrial purposes. EID requested that Chemours defend and indemnify it in these matters. Chemours has accepted the indemnity and defense of EID while reserving rights and declining EID’s demand as to matters involving other EID entities, as well as ISRA and fraudulent transfer pursuant to the terms of the MOU. PFOA and PFAS Summary With the exception of the trial verdict in the testicular cancer case noted above, management believes that it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses related to PFOA (in addition to the Second MDL Settlement) 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 a putative class action, pending against EID 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 EID environmental liabilities. The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages, property diminution, and other damages. At Separation, EID 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. Securities Litigation In October 2019, a putative class action was filed in Delaware federal court against Chemours and certain of its officers. Following appointment of lead plaintiff, the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, and counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that the defendants violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions in public disclosures regarding environmental liabilities and litigation matters assigned to Chemours in connection with its spin-off from EID. The amended complaint seeks a class of purchasers of Chemours stock between February 16, 2017 and August 1, 2019 and demands compensatory damages and fees. Commencing in July 2020, follow-on derivative lawsuits were filed by individual shareholders in Dela |
