| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Litigation and Environmental Matters As of March 31, 2021, the Company has liabilities of $18 million associated with litigation matters including non-PFAS liabilities retained, assumed or indemnified under the DWDP Separation and Distribution Agreement discussed below. In addition, DuPont has liabilities of $11 million related to the remaining settlement of the Ohio MDL, discussed below, and of $62 million in connection with the cost sharing arrangement related to future eligible PFAS costs, discussed below, between The Chemours Company (“Chemours”), Corteva, EID and the Company. Management believes that it is reasonably possible the Company could incur eligible PFAS costs in excess of the amounts accrued, but any such losses are not estimable at this time due to various reasons, including, among others, that the underlying matters are in their early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved. Eligible PFAS costs are included in PFAS Stray Liabilities discussed below. Discontinued and/or Divested Operations and Businesses ("DDOB") Liabilities of EID Under the DWDP Separation and Distribution Agreement and the Letter Agreement between Corteva and DuPont, DDOB liabilities of EID primarily related to EID’s agriculture business were allocated to or retained by Corteva and those primarily related to EID’s specialty products business were allocated to or retained by the Company. EID DDOB liabilities not primarily related to EID’s agriculture business or specialty products business (“Stray Liabilities”), are allocated as follows: • Generally, indemnifiable losses as defined in the DWDP Separation and Distribution Agreement, (“Indemnifiable Losses”) for Stray Liabilities, to the extent they do not arise out of actions related to or resulting from the development, testing, manufacture or sale of PFAS, defined below, (“Non-PFAS Stray Liabilities”) that are known as of April 1, 2019 are borne by Corteva up to a specified amount set forth in the schedules to the Separation and Distribution Agreement and/or Letter Agreement. Non-PFAS Stray Liabilities in excess of such specified amounts and any Non-PFAS Stray Liabilities not listed in the schedules to the DWDP Separation and Distribution Agreement or Letter Agreement are borne by Corteva and/or DuPont up to separate, aggregate thresholds of $200 million each to the extent Corteva or DuPont, as applicable, incurs an Indemnifiable Loss. Once Corteva’s or DuPont’s $200 million threshold is met, the other would generally bear all Non-PFAS Stray Liabilities until meeting its $200 million threshold. After the respective $200 million thresholds are met, DuPont will bear 71 percent of such losses and Corteva will bear 29 percent of such losses. While DuPont believes it is probable that it will incur a liability related to Non-PFAS Stray Liabilities discussed below, such liability is not reasonably estimable at March 31, 2021. Therefore, at March 31, 2021, DuPont has not recorded an accrual related to Non-PFAS Liabilities. • Generally, Corteva and the Company will each bear 50 percent of the first $300 million (up to $150 million each) for Indemnifiable Losses arising out of actions to the extent related to or resulting from the development, testing, manufacture or sale of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances, which include perfluorooctanoic acids and its ammonium salts (“PFOA”) (all such substances, “PFAS” and such Stray Liabilities referred to as “PFAS Stray Liabilities”), unless either Corteva or DuPont has met its $200 million threshold described above. In that event, the other company would bear all PFAS Stray Liabilities until that company meets its $200 million threshold, at which point DuPont will bear 71 percent of such losses and Corteva will bear 29 percent of such losses. Indemnifiable Losses to the extent related to PFAS Stray Liabilities in excess of $300 million generally will be borne 71 percent by the Company and 29 percent by Corteva. • Indemnifiable Losses incurred by the companies in relation to PFAS Stray Liabilities up to $300 million (e.g., up to $150 million each) will be applied to each company’s respective $200 million threshold. Indemnifiable Losses, as defined in the DWDP Separation and Distribution Agreement, include, among other things, attorneys’, accountants’, consultants’ and other professionals’ fees and expenses incurred in the investigation or defense of Stray Liabilities. DuPont expects to continue to incur directly and as Indemnifiable Losses and/or qualified spend (as defined below), costs and expenses related to litigation defense, such as attorneys’ fees and expenses and court costs, in connection with the Stray Liabilities described below. In accordance with its accounting policy for litigation matters, the Company will expense such litigation defense costs as incurred which could be significant to the Company’s financial condition and/or cash flows in the period. Even when the Company believes the probability of loss or of an adverse unappealable final judgment is remote, the Company may consider settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement agreements, if it believes settlement is in the best interest of the Company, including avoidance of future distraction and litigation defense cost, and its shareholders. PFAS Stray Liabilities: Future Eligible PFAS Costs On July 1, 2015, EID completed the separation of EID’s Performance Chemicals segment through the spin-off of Chemours to holders of EID common stock (the “Chemours Separation”). In connection with the spin-off, EID and Chemours entered into a Separation Agreement. In 2017, EID and Chemours amended the Chemours Separation Agreement (as amended, the “Chemours Separation Agreement”) to provide for a limited sharing of potential future liabilities related to alleged historical releases of PFOA for a five-year period that began on July 6, 2017. On January 22, 2021, the Company, Corteva, EID and Chemours entered into a binding Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”), pursuant to which the parties have agreed to release certain claims that had been raised by Chemours including any claims arising out of or resulting from the process and manner in which EID structured or conducted the Chemours Separation, and any other claims that challenge the Chemours Separation or the assumption of Chemours Liabilities (as defined in the Chemours Separation Agreement) by Chemours and the allocation thereof, subject in each case to certain exceptions set forth in the MOU. In connection with the MOU, the confidential arbitration process regarding certain claims by Chemours was terminated in February 2021. The parties have further agreed not to bring any future, additional claims regarding the Chemours Separation Agreement or the MOU outside of arbitration. Pursuant to the MOU, the parties have agreed to share certain costs associated with potential future liabilities related to alleged historical releases of certain PFAS, including PFOA, out of pre-July 1, 2015 conduct (“eligible PFAS costs”) until the earlier to occur of (i) December 31, 2040, (ii) the day on which the aggregate amount of qualified spend (as defined in the MOU) is equal to $4 billion or (iii) a termination in accordance with the terms of the MOU. This sharing arrangement replaces the cost sharing arrangement between EID and Chemours established pursuant to the Chemours Separation Agreement. The parties have agreed that, during the term of this sharing arrangement, Chemours will bear 50 percent of any qualified spend and the Company and Corteva shall bear 50 percent of any qualified spend. The Company’s and Corteva’s share of qualified spend shall not exceed $2 billion in the aggregate. After the term of this arrangement, Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the Chemours Separation Agreement would continue unchanged, subject in each case to certain exceptions set forth in the MOU. In order to support and manage any potential future eligible PFAS costs, the parties have also agreed to establish an escrow account. The MOU provides that (1) no later than each of September 30, 2021 and September 30, 2022, Chemours shall deposit $100 million into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $100 million in the aggregate into an escrow account and (2) no later than September 30 of each subsequent year through and including 2028, Chemours shall deposit $50 million into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $50 million 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 million, Chemours will make 50 percent of the deposits and DuPont and Corteva together will make 50 percent of the deposits necessary to restore the balance of the escrow account to $700 million. 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. All funding obligations of the Company and Corteva under this sharing arrangement, whether in respect of escrow funding or in respect of qualified spend, will be allocated between the Company and Corteva in accordance with the terms of the DWDP Separation and Distribution Agreement and the terms of the Letter Agreement. Future charges, if any, associated with the MOU would be recognized over the term of the agreement as a component of income from discontinued operations to the extent liabilities become probable and estimable. The parties have agreed to cooperate in good faith to enter into additional agreements reflecting the terms set forth in the MOU in the second quarter of 2021. Ohio MDL Personal Injury Cases DuPont, which was formed after the spin-off of Chemours by EID, is not named in the personal injury and other PFAS actions discussed below. In 2004, EID settled a West Virginia state court class action, Leach v. DuPont, which alleged that PFOA from EID’s former Washington Works facility had contaminated area drinking water supplies and affected the health of area residents. Members of the Leach class have standing to pursue personal injury claims for just six health conditions that an expert panel appointed under the Leach settlement reported in 2012 had a “probable link” (as defined in the settlement) with PFOA: pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. In 2017, Chemours and EID each paid $335 million to settle the multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (“Ohio MDL”), thereby resolving claims of about 3,550 plaintiffs alleging injury from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. The 2017 settlement did not resolve claims of Leach class members who did not have claims in the Ohio MDL or whose claims are based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. Since the 2017 settlement about 100 additional cases alleging personal injury, including kidney and testicular cancer claims, have been filed or noticed and are pending in the Ohio MDL. On January 21, 2021, EID and Chemours entered into settlement agreements with plaintiffs’ counsel representing the Ohio MDL plaintiffs providing for a settlement of cases and claims in the Ohio MDL, except as noted below (the “Settlement”). The total settlement amount is $83 million in cash with each of the Company and EID contributing $27 million and Chemours contributing $29 million. At March 31, 2021 the Company had paid $16 million of its $27 million contribution; the remainder was paid in April 2021. T he Settlement was entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or fault by the Company, Corteva, EID or Chemours. In connection with the Settlement, in April 2021 the plaintiffs filed a motion to terminate the Ohio MDL. The case captioned “Abbott v E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company” is not included in the Settlement and is presently pending appeal. In the Abbott case, the jury returned a verdict in March 2020 against EID, awarding $50 million in compensatory damages to the plaintiff and his wife, who claimed that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused him to develop testicular cancer. In March 2021, the trial judge entered an order denying EID’s post-trial motions for a reduction in the verdict amount for Mr. Abbott but reduced Mrs. Abbott’s verdict for loss of consortium from $10 million to $250,000, reducing the total verdict to $40.25 million. EID has appealed the verdict. The plaintiffs also sought but were not awarded punitive damages. In addition to the actions described above, there are several cases alleging damages to natural resources, the environment, water, and/or property as well as various other allegations. DuPont and Corteva are named in most of the actions discussed below. Such actions include additional claims based on allegations that the transfer by EID of certain PFAS liabilities to Chemours prior to the Chemours Separation resulted in a fraudulent conveyance or voidable transaction. With the exception of the fraudulent conveyance claims, which are excluded from the MOU, legal fees, expenses, costs, and any potential liabilities for eligible PFAS costs presented by the following matters will be shared as defined in the MOU between Chemours, EID, Corteva and DuPont. Natural Resource Damage Matters Since May 2017, a number of state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against DuPont, Corteva, EID, Chemours, and others, claiming environmental contamination by certain PFAS compounds. Such actions are currently pending in Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio and Vermont. Generally, the states raise common law tort claims and seek economic impact damages for alleged harm to natural resources, punitive damages, present and future costs to cleanup contamination from certain PFAS compounds, and to abate the alleged nuisance. Most of these actions include fraudulent transfer claims related to the Chemours Separation and the DowDuPont separations. Additionally, DuPont has engaged with the State of Delaware regarding potential similar causes of action for PFAS and other contaminants. Other PFAS Environmental Matters Several additional lawsuits have been filed by residents, local water districts, and private water companies against EID, Chemours, Corteva, DuPont and others in New York, New Jersey, and California generally alleging contamination of water systems due to the release of PFAS compounds. These suits seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as present and future costs to clean up the alleged contamination. This includes a putative class action filed in the Northern District of New York on behalf of all individuals who, as of December 1, 2015, are or were owners of real property located in the Village of Hoosick Falls, New York and who obtain their drinking water from a privately owned well which has allegedly been contaminated by PFAS. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as medical monitoring. The certification of the class is currently pending before the court. Additionally, there are several actions that have been filed in New Jersey and New York on behalf of residents who allege personal injuries due to exposure to PFAS in their drinking water. These lawsuits generally seek compensatory and punitive damages stemming from those alleged injuries and medical monitoring. Aqueous Film Forming Foam Beginning in April 2019, several dozen lawsuits involving water contamination arising from the use of PFAS-containing aqueous firefighting foams (“AFFF”) were filed against EID, Chemours, 3M and other AFFF manufacturers and in different parts of the country. Most were consolidated in multi-district litigation docket in federal district court in South Carolina (the “SC MDL”). Many of those cases also name DuPont as a defendant. Those actions largely seek remediation of the alleged PFAS contamination in and around military bases and airports as well as medical monitoring of affected residents. The first ten bellwether cases have been selected by the court, all of which are water district contamination cases. As of March 31, 2021, approximately 1,020 personal injury cases have been filed directly in the SC MDL and assert claims on behalf of individual firefighters and others who allege that exposure to PFAS in firefighting foam caused them to develop cancer, including kidney and testicular cancer. DuPont has been named as a defendant in most of these personal injury AFFF cases. DuPont is seeking the dismissal of DowDuPont and DuPont from these actions. EID and the Company have never made or sold AFFF, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") or PFOS containing products. Additionally, a case filed by a former firefighter is pending in the Southern District of Ohio seeking certification of a nationwide class of individuals who have detectable levels of PFAS in their blood serum. The suit was filed against 3M and several other defendants in addition to Chemours and EID. The complaint specifically seeks, among other things, the creation of a “PFAS Science Panel” to study the effects of PFAS, but expressly states that the class does not seek compensatory damages for personal injuries. In February 2020, the court denied the defendants' motion to transfer this case to the SC MDL. The decision of whether to certify the class is currently pending before the court. North Carolina PFAS Actions There are several actions pending in federal court against EID and Chemours, relating to discharges of PFCs, including GenX, into the Cape Fear River. GenX is a polymerization processing aid and a replacement for PFOA introduced by EID which Chemours continues to manufacture at its Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County, North Carolina. One of these actions is a consolidated putative class action that asserts claims for damages and other relief on behalf of putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or who draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River. Another action is a consolidated action brought by various North Carolina water authorities, including the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and Brunswick County, that seek actual and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. In addition, an action is pending in North Carolina state court on behalf of about 200 plaintiffs who own wells and property near the Fayetteville Works facility. The plaintiffs seek damages for nuisance allegedly caused by releases of certain PFCs from the site. In the third quarter 2020, three lawsuits were filed in North Carolina state court against Chemours, EID, Corteva and DuPont. The lawsuits seek damages for alleged personal injuries to more than 100 individuals due to alleged exposure to PFOA and GenX originating from the Fayetteville Works plant. These lawsuits also include fraudulent transfer allegations related to the Chemours Separation. Other Litigation Matters In addition to the specific matters described above, the Company is party to other claims and lawsuits arising out of the normal course of business with respect to product liability, patent infringement, governmental regulation, contract and commercial litigation, and other actions. Certain of these actions may purport to be class actions and seek damages in very large amounts. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the possibility is remote that the aggregate of all such other claims and lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on the results of operations, financial condition and cash flows of the Company. Environmental Matters Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated based on current law and existing technologies. At March 31, 2021, the Company had accrued obligations of $82 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, inclusive of $37 million retained and assumed following the DWDP Distributions and $45 million of indemnified liabilities. These obligations are included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" and "Other noncurrent obligations" in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. This is management’s best estimate of the costs for remediation and restoration with respect to environmental matters for which the Company has accrued liabilities, although it is reasonably possible that the ultimate cost with respect to these particular matters could range up to $172 million above the amount accrued at March 31, 2021. Consequently, it is reasonably possible that environmental remediation and restoration costs in excess of amounts accrued could have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Inherent uncertainties exist in these estimates primarily due to unknown conditions, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies for handling site remediation and restoration. At December 31, 2020 the Company had accrued obligations of $80 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs. Pursuant to the DWDP Separation and Distribution Agreement, the Company is required to indemnify certain clean-up responsibilities and associated remediation costs. The accrued environmental obligations of $45 million as of March 31, 2021 includes amount for which the Company indemnifies Dow and Corteva. At March 31, 2021, the Company has indemnified Dow and Corteva $8 million and $37 million, respectively. Indemnifications In connection with the ongoing divestitures and transactions, the Company has indemnified and has been indemnified by respective parties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with these transactions and business activities prior to the completion of the respective transactions. The term of these indemnifications, which typically pertain to environmental, tax and product liabilities, is generally indefinite. At March 31, 2021, the indemnification assets were $80 million within "Accounts and notes receivable - net" and $228 million within "Deferred charges and other assets" and the indemnification liabilities were $160 million within "Accrued and other current liabilities" and $140 million within "Other noncurrent obligations" within the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Guarantees Obligations for Equity Affiliates & Others The Company has directly guaranteed various debt obligations under agreements with third parties related to equity affiliates and customers. At March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the Company had directly guaranteed $180 million and $189 million, respectively, of such obligations. These amounts represent the maximum potential amount of future (undiscounted) payments that the Company could be required to make under the guarantees. The Company would be required to perform on these guarantees in the event of default by the guaranteed party. The Company assesses the payment/performance risk by assigning default rates based on the duration of the guarantees. These default rates are assigned based on the external credit rating of the counterparty or through internal credit analysis and historical default history for counterparties that do not have published credit ratings. For counterparties without an external rating or available credit history, a cumulative average default rate is used. In certain cases, the Company has recourse to assets held as collateral, as well as personal guarantees from customers. At March 31, 2021, no collateral was held by the Company. The following table provides a summary of the final expiration year and maximum future payments for each type of guarantee: Guarantees at March 31, 2021 Final Expiration Year Maximum Future Payments In millions Obligations for customers 1 : Bank borrowings 2021 $ 15 Obligations for non-consolidated affiliates 2 : Bank borrowings 2021 $ 165 Total guarantees $ 180 1. Existing guarantees for select customers, as part of contractual agreements. The terms of the guarantees are equivalent to the terms of the customer loans that are primarily made to finance customer invoices. At March 31, 2021, all maximum future payments had terms less than a year. 2. Existing guarantees for non-consolidated affiliates' liquidity needs in normal operations. |
