COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Environmental Matters Introduction 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 December 31, 2018 , the Company had accrued obligations of $820 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $156 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. 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 approximately two times that amount. 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. It is the opinion of the Company’s management, however, that the possibility is remote that costs in excess of the range disclosed will have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or 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, 2017 , the Company had accrued obligations of $878 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $152 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. In the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a pretax charge of $295 million for environmental remediation at a number of historical locations, including the Midland manufacturing site/off-site matters and the Wood-Ridge sites, primarily resulting from the culmination of negotiations with regulators and/or final agency approval. These charges were included in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of income. The following table summarizes the activity in the Company's accrued obligations for environmental matters for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 : Accrued Obligations for Environmental Matters 2018 2017 In millions Balance at Jan 1 $ 878 $ 909 Accrual adjustment 175 172 Payments against reserve (209 ) (220 ) Foreign currency impact (24 ) 17 Balance at Dec 31 $ 820 $ 878 The amounts charged to income on a pretax basis related to environmental remediation totaled $174 million in 2018 , $171 million in 2017 and $504 million in 2016 . Capital expenditures for environmental protection were $76 million in 2018 , $79 million in 2017 and $66 million in 2016 . Midland Off-Site Environmental Matters On June 12, 2003, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") issued a Hazardous Waste Operating License (the "License") to the Company’s Midland, Michigan manufacturing site (the “Midland site”), which was renewed and replaced by the MDEQ on September 25, 2015, and included provisions requiring the Company to conduct an investigation to determine the nature and extent of off-site contamination in the City of Midland soils, the Tittabawassee River and Saginaw River sediment and floodplain soils, and the Saginaw Bay, and, if necessary, undertake remedial action. In 2016, final regulatory approval was received from the MDEQ for the City of Midland and Dow is continuing the long term monitoring requirements of the Remedial Action Plan. Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers, Saginaw Bay The Company, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the State of Michigan ("State") entered into an administrative order on consent (“AOC”), effective January 21, 2010, that requires the Company to conduct a remedial investigation, a feasibility study and a remedial design for the Tittabawassee River, the Saginaw River and the Saginaw Bay, and pay the oversight costs of the EPA and the State under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. These actions, to be conducted under the lead oversight of the EPA, will build upon the investigative work completed under the State Resource Conservation Recovery Act program from 2005 through 2009. The Tittabawassee River, beginning at the Midland Site and extending down to the first six miles of the Saginaw River, are designated as the first Operable Unit for purposes of conducting the remedial investigation, feasibility study and remedial design work. This work will be performed in a largely upriver to downriver sequence for eight geographic segments of the Tittabawassee and upper Saginaw Rivers. In the first quarter of 2012, the EPA requested the Company address the Tittabawassee River floodplain ("Floodplain") as an additional segment. In January 2015, the Company and the EPA entered into an order to address remediation of the Floodplain. The remedial work is expected to take place over the next three years. The remainder of the Saginaw River and the Saginaw Bay are designated as a second Operable Unit and the work associated with that unit may also be geographically segmented. The AOC does not obligate the Company to perform removal or remedial action; that action can only be required by a separate order. The Company and the EPA have been negotiating orders separate from the AOC that obligate the Company to perform remedial actions under the scope of work of the AOC. The Company and the EPA have entered into four separate orders to perform limited remedial actions in five of the eight geographic segments in the first Operable Unit, and the order to address the Floodplain. Alternative Dispute Resolution Process The Company, the EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), and the natural resource damage trustees (which include the Michigan Office of the Attorney General, the MDEQ, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Saginaw-Chippewa tribe) have been engaged in negotiations to seek to resolve potential governmental claims against the Company related to historical off-site contamination associated with the City of Midland, the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers and the Saginaw Bay. The Company and the governmental parties started meeting in the fall of 2005 and entered into a Confidentiality Agreement in December 2005. The Company continues to conduct negotiations under the Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution Act with all of the governmental parties, except the EPA which withdrew from the alternative dispute resolution process on September 12, 2007. On September 28, 2007, the Company and the natural resource damage trustees entered into a Funding and Participation Agreement that addressed the Company’s payment of past costs incurred by the natural resource damage trustees, payment of the costs of a trustee coordinator and a process to review additional cooperative studies that the Company might agree to fund or conduct with the natural resource damage trustees. On March 18, 2008, the Company and the natural resource damage trustees entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to provide a mechanism for the Company to fund cooperative studies related to the assessment of natural resource damages. This MOU was amended and funding of cooperative studies was extended until March 2014. All cooperative studies have been completed. On April 7, 2008, the natural resource damage trustees released their “Natural Resource Damage Assessment Plan for the Tittabawassee River System Assessment Area.” At December 31, 2018 , the accrual for these off-site matters was $95 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $820 million ). At December 31, 2017 , the Company had an accrual for these off-site matters of $83 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $878 million ). Environmental Matters Summary It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the possibility is remote that costs in excess of those disclosed will have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Litigation Asbestos-Related Matters of Union Carbide Corporation Introduction Union Carbide is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide’s premises, and Union Carbide’s responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union Carbide’s products. Union Carbide expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against Union Carbide and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims. Estimating the Asbestos-Related Liability Based on a study completed in January 2003 by Ankura Consulting Group, LLC ("Ankura"), Union Carbide increased its December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims for a 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2 billion , excluding future defense and processing costs. Since then, Union Carbide has compared current asbestos claim and resolution activity to the results of the most recent Ankura study at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual continues to be appropriate. In addition, Union Carbide has requested Ankura to review Union Carbide’s historical asbestos claim and resolution activity each year since 2004 to determine the appropriateness of updating the most recent Ankura study. In October 2016, Union Carbide requested Ankura to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2014 study. In response to the request, Ankura reviewed and analyzed asbestos-related claim and resolution data through September 30, 2016. The resulting study, completed by Ankura in December 2016, provided estimates for the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, excluding future defense and processing costs, for both a 15-year period and through the terminal year of 2049. Based on the study completed in December 2016 by Ankura, and Union Carbide's own review, it was determined that an adjustment to the accrual was necessary . Union Carbide determined that using the estimate through the terminal year of 2049 was more appropriate due to increasing knowledge and data about the costs to resolve claims and diminished volatility in filing rates. Using the range in the Ankura December 2016 study, which was estimated to be betwe en $502 million and $565 million f or the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims, Union Carbide increased its asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims through the terminal year of 2049 by $104 million , inc luded in "Asbestos-related charge" in the consolidated statements of income. In September 2014, Union Carbide began to implement a strategy designed to reduce and to ultimately stabilize and forecast defense costs associated with asbestos-related matters. The strategy included a number of important changes including: invoicing protocols including capturing costs by plaintiff; review of existing counsel roles, work processes and workflow; and the utilization of enterprise legal management software, which enabled claim-specific tracking of asbestos-related defense and processing costs. Union Carbide reviewed the information generated from this new strategy and determined that it now had the ability to reasonably estimate asbestos-related defense and processing costs for the same periods that it estimates its asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims. Union Carbide believes that including estimates of the liability for asbestos-related defense and processing costs provides a more complete assessment and measure of the liability associated with resolving asbestos-related matters, which Union Carbide and the Company believe is preferable in these circumstances. In October 2016, in addition to the study for asbestos claim and resolution activity, Union Carbide requested Ankura to review asbestos-related defense and processing costs and provide an estimate of defense and processing costs associated with resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem for the same periods of time that Union Carbide uses for estimating resolution costs. In December 2016, Ankura conducted the study and provided Union Carbide with an estimate of future defense and processing costs for both a 15-year period and through the terminal year of 2049. The resulting study estimated asbestos-related defense and processing costs for pending and future asbestos claims to be between $1,009 million and $1,081 million through the terminal year of 2049. In the fourth quarter of 2016, Union Carbide and the Company elected to change their method of accounting for asbestos-related defense and processing costs from expensing as incurred to estimating and accruing a liability. This change is believed to be preferable as asbestos-related defense and processing costs represent expenditures related to legacy activities that do not contribute to current or future revenue generating activities of the Company. The change is also reflective of the manner in which Union Carbide manages its asbestos-related exposure, including careful monitoring of the correlation between defense spending and resolution costs. Together, these two sources of cost more accurately represent the “total cost” of resolving asbestos-related claims now and in the future. This accounting policy change was reflected as a change in accounting estimate effected by a change in accounting principle. As a result of this accounting policy change and based on the December 2016 Ankura study of asbestos-related defense and processing costs and Union Carbide's own review of the data, Union Carbide recorded a pretax charge for asbestos-related defense and processing costs of $1,009 million in the fourth quarter of 2016, included in “Asbestos-related charge” in the consolidated statements of income. In October 2017, Union Carbide requested Ankura to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity (including asbestos-related defense and processing costs) and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2016 study. In response to that request, Ankura reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2017. In December 2017, Ankura stated that an update of its December 2016 study would not provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate reflected in the study and, therefore, the estimate in that study remained applicable. Based on Union Carbide's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity (including asbestos-related defense and processing costs) and Ankura's response, Union Carbide determined that no change to the accrual was required. At December 31, 2017, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, including future asbestos-related defense and processing costs, was $1,369 million , and approximately 16 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 84 percent related to future claims. In October 2018, Union Carbide requested Ankura to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity (including asbestos-related defense and processing costs) and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2016 study. In response to that request, Ankura reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2018. The resulting study, completed by Ankura in December 2018, provided estimates for the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, including future defense and processing costs, through the terminal year of 2049. Based on the study completed in December 2018 by Ankura, and Union Carbide's own review, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required. At December 31, 2018, Union Carbide's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was $1,260 million , and approximately 16 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 84 percent related to future claims. Summary The Company's management believes the amounts recorded by Union Carbide for the asbestos-related liability (including defense and processing costs) reflect reasonable and probable estimates of the liability based upon current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average cost of defending and disposing of each such claim, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States over a significant period of time, could cause the actual costs for Union Carbide to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. Any such events could result in an increase or decrease in the recorded liability. Because of the uncertainties described above, Union Carbide cannot estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem. As a result, it is reasonably possible that an additional cost of disposing of Union Carbide's asbestos-related claims, including future defense and processing costs, could have a material impact on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position. Urethane Matters Class Action Lawsuit On February 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a subpoena from the DOJ as part of a previously announced antitrust investigation of manufacturers of polyurethane chemicals, including methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, toluene diisocyanate, polyether polyols and system house products. The Company cooperated with the DOJ and, following an extensive investigation, on December 10, 2007, the Company received notice from the DOJ that it had closed its investigation of potential antitrust violations involving these products without indictments or pleas. In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the products that were the subject of the above described DOJ antitrust investigation. On July 29, 2008, a Kansas City federal district court (the "district court") certified a class of purchasers of the products for the six-year period from 1999 through 2004 ("plaintiff class"). In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial with the Company as the sole remaining defendant, the other defendants having previously settled. On February 20, 2013, the federal jury returned a damages verdict of approximately $400 million against the Company, which ultimately was trebled under applicable antitrust laws, less offsets from other settling defendants, resulting in a judgment entered in July 2013 in the amount of $1.06 billion . The Company appealed this judgment to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Court of Appeals"), and on September 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the district court judgment. On March 9, 2015, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari ("Writ Petition") with the United States Supreme Court, seeking judicial review and requesting that it correct fundamental errors in the Court of Appeals decision. In the first quarter of 2016, the Company changed its risk assessment on this matter as a result of growing political uncertainties due to events within the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia's death, and the increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for businesses involved in class action lawsuits. On February 26, 2016, the Company announced a proposed settlement under which the Company would pay the plaintiff class $835 million , which included damages, class attorney fees and post-judgment interest. On July 29, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted final approval of the settlement. The settlement resolved the $1.06 billion judgment and any subsequent claim for attorneys' fees, costs and post-judgment interest against the Company. As a result, in the first quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a loss of $835 million , included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income. The Company continues to believe that it was not part of any conspiracy and the judgment was fundamentally flawed as a matter of class action law. The case is now concluded. Opt-Out Cases Shortly after the July 2008 class certification ruling, a series of "opt-out" cases were filed by a number of large volume purchasers who elected not to be class members in the district court case. These opt-out cases were substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded the period of time to include 1994 through 1998. A consolidated jury trial of the opt-out cases began on March 8, 2016. Prior to a jury verdict, on April 5, 2016, the Company entered into a binding settlement for the opt-out cases under which the Company would pay the named plaintiffs $400 million , inclusive of damages and attorney fees. Payment of this settlement occurred on May 4, 2016. The Company changed its risk assessment on this matter as a result of the class settlement and the uncertainty of a jury trial outcome along with the automatic trebling of an adverse verdict. As a result, the Company recorded a loss of $400 million in the first quarter of 2016, included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income. As with the class action case, the Company continues to deny allegations of price fixing and maintains that it was not part of any conspiracy. The case is now concluded. Bayer CropScience v. Dow AgroSciences ICC Arbitration On August 13, 2012, Bayer CropScience AG and Bayer CropScience NV (together, “Bayer”) filed a request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") International Court of Arbitration against Dow AgroSciences LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and other subsidiaries of the Company (collectively, “DAS”) under a 1992 license agreement executed by predecessors of the parties (the “License Agreement”). In its request for arbitration, Bayer alleged that (i) DAS breached the License Agreement, (ii) the License Agreement was properly terminated with no ongoing rights to DAS, (iii) DAS infringed its patent rights related to the use of the pat gene in certain soybean and cotton seed products, and (iv) Bayer was entitled to monetary damages and injunctive relief. DAS denied that it breached the License Agreement and asserted that the License Agreement remained in effect because it was not properly terminated. DAS also asserted that all of Bayer’s patents at issue are invalid and/or not infringed, and, therefore, for these reasons (and others), a license was not required. During the pendency of the arbitration proceeding, DAS filed six re-examination petitions with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) against the Bayer patents, asserting that each patent is invalid based on the doctrine against double-patenting and/or prior art. The USPTO granted all six petitions, and, on February 26, 2015, the USPTO issued an office action rejecting the patentability of the sole Bayer patent claim in the only asserted Bayer patent that has not expired and that forms the basis for the vast majority of the damages in the arbitral award discussed below. A three-member arbitration tribunal presided over the arbitration proceeding (the “tribunal”). In a decision dated October 9, 2015, the tribunal determined that (i) DAS breached the License Agreement, (ii) Bayer properly terminated the License Agreement, (iii) all of the patents remaining in the proceeding are valid and infringed, and (iv) that Bayer is entitled to monetary damages in the amount of $455 million inclusive of pre-judgment interest and costs (the “arbitral award”). One of the arbitrators, however, issued a partial dissent finding that all of the patents are invalid based on the double-patenting doctrine. The tribunal also denied Bayer’s request for injunctive relief. On October 16, 2015, Bayer filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ("Federal District Court") seeking to confirm the arbitral award. DAS opposed the motion and filed separate motions to vacate the award, or in the alternative, to stay enforcement of the award until the USPTO issued final office actions with respect to the re-examination proceedings. On January 15, 2016, the Federal District Court denied DAS's motions and confirmed the award. DAS appealed the Federal District Court's decision. On March 1, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") affirmed the arbitral award. As a result of this action, in the first quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a loss of $469 million , inclusive of the arbitral award and post-judgment interest, which was included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income. On May 19, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued a mandate denying DAS's request to stay the arbitral award pending judicial review by the United States Supreme Court. On May 26, 2017, the Company paid the $469 million arbitral award to Bayer as a result of that decision. On September 11, 2017, DAS filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to review the case, but the Court denied DAS’s petition. The litigation is now concluded with no risk of further liability. The Company continues to believe that the arbitral award is fundamentally flawed because, among other things, it allowed for the enforcement of invalid patents. The arbitral award and subsequent related judicial decisions will not impact DAS’s commercialization of its soybean and cotton seed products, including those containing the ENLIST™ technologies. Rocky Flats Matter The Company and Rockwell International Corporation ("Rockwell") (collectively, the "defendants") were defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in 1990 on behalf of property owners ("plaintiffs") in Rocky Flats, Colorado, who asserted claims for nuisance and trespass based on alleged property damage caused by plutonium releases from a nuclear weapons facility owned by the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") (the "facility"). Dow and Rockwell were both DOE contractors that operated the facility - Dow from 1952 to 1975 and Rockwell from 1975 to 1989. The facility was permanently shut down in 1989. In 1993, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado ("District Court") certified the class of property owners. The plaintiffs tried their case as a public liability action under the Price Anderson Act ("PAA"). In 2005, the jury returned a damages verdict of $926 million . Dow and Rockwell appealed the jury award to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Court of Appeals") which concluded the PAA had its own injury requirements, on which the jury had not been instructed, and also vacated the District Court's class certification ruling, reversed and remanded the case, and vacated the District Court's judgment. The plaintiffs argued on remand to the District Court that they were entitled to reinstate the judgment as a state law nuisance claim, independent of the PAA. The District Court rejected that argument and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the District Court's ruling, holding that the PAA did not preempt the plaintiffs' nuisance claim under Colorado law and that the plaintiffs could seek reinstatement of the prior nuisance verdict under Colorado law. Dow and Rockwell continued to litigate this matter in the District Court and in the United States Supreme Court following the appellate court decision. On May 18, 2016, Dow, Rockwell and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement for $375 million , of which $131 million was paid by Dow. The DOE authorized the settlement pursuant to the PAA and the nuclear hazards indemnity provisions contained in Dow's and Rockwell's contracts. The District Court granted preliminary approval to the class settlement on August 5, 2016. On April 28, 2017, the District Court conducted a fairness hearing and granted final judgment approving the class settlement and dismissed class claims against the defendants ("final judgment order"). On December 13, 2016, the United States Civil Board of Contract Appeals unanimously ordered the United States government to pay the amounts stipulated in the settlement agreement. On January 17, 2017, the Company received a full indemnity payment of $131 million from the United States government for Dow's share of the class settlement. On January 26, 2017, the Company placed $130 million in an escrow account for the settlement payment owed to the plaintiffs. The funds were subsequently released from escrow as a result of the final judgment order. The litigation is now concluded. Dow Silicones Chapter 11 Related Matters Introduction In 1995, Dow Silicones, then a 50:50 joint venture between Dow and Corning, voluntarily filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in order to resolve Dow Silicones’ breast implant liabilities and related matters (the “Chapter 11 Proceeding”). Dow Silicones emerged from the Chapter 11 Proceeding on June 1, 2004 (the “Effective Date”) and is implementing the Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). The Plan provides funding for the resolution of breast implant and other product liability litigation covered by the Chapter 11 Proceeding and provides a process for the satisfaction of commercial creditor claims in the Chapter 11 Proceeding. As of June 1, 2016, Dow Silicones is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow. Breast Implant and Other Product Liability Claims Under the Plan, a product liability settlement program administered by an independent claims office (the “Settlement Facility”) was created to resolve breast implant and other product liability claims. Product liability claimants rejecting the settlement program in favor of pursuing litigation must bring suit against a litigation facility (the “Litigation Facility”). Under the Plan, total payments committed by Dow Silicones to resolving product liability claims are capped at a maximum $2,350 million net present value (“NPV”) determined as of the Effective Date using a discount rate of seven percent (approximately $3,876 million undiscounted at December 31, 2018 ). Of this amount, no more than $400 million NPV determined as of the Effective Date can be used to fund the Litigation Facility. December 31, 2018 , Dow Silicones and its insurers have made life-to-date payments of $1,762 million to the Settlement Facility and the Settlement Facility reported an unexpended balance of $118 million . On June 1, 2016, as part of the ownership restructure of Dow Silicones and in accordance with ASC 450 "Accounting for Contingencies," the Company recorded a liability of $290 million for breast implant and other product liability claims (“Implant Liability”), which reflected the estimated impact of the settlement of future claims primarily based on reported claim filing levels in the Revised Settlement Program (the “RSP”) and on the resolution of almost all cases pending against the Litigation Facility. The RSP was a program sponsored by certain other breast implant manufacturers in the context of multi-district, coordinated federal breast implant cases and was open from 1995 through 2010. The RSP was also a revised successor to an earlier settlement plan involving Dow Silicones (prior to its bankruptcy filing). While Dow Silicones withdrew from the RSP, many of the benefit categories and payment levels in Dow Silicones settlement program were drawn from the RSP. Based on the comparability in design and ac |