| LITIGATION | LITIGATION In the course of its business, the Company is subject to a variety of claims and lawsuits, including, but not limited to, litigation relating to product liability and warranty, personal injury, environmental, intellectual property, commercial, contractual and antitrust claims that are inherently subject to many uncertainties regarding the possibility of a loss to the Company. These uncertainties will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur confirming the incurrence of a liability or the reduction of a liability. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic of the ASC, the Company accrues for these contingencies by a charge to income when it is both probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that the Company’s loss contingency is ultimately determined to be significantly higher than currently accrued, the recording of the additional liability may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such additional liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded because it is not probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated, any potential liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded or exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued, the Contingencies Topic of the ASC requires disclosure of the contingency when there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred. Lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. The Company’s past operations included the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The Company, along with other companies, is and has been a defendant in a number of legal proceedings, including individual personal injury actions, purported class actions, and actions brought by various counties, cities, school districts and other government-related entities, arising from the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The plaintiffs’ claims have been based upon various legal theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability, public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories. The plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including personal injury and property damage, costs relating to the detection and abatement of lead-based paint from buildings, costs associated with a public education campaign, medical monitoring costs and others. The Company has also been a defendant in legal proceedings arising from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints that seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including the failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead during surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint. The Company believes that the litigation brought to date is without merit or subject to meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending such litigation. The Company expects that additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be filed against the Company in the future asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief. The Company will continue to vigorously defend against any additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation that may be filed, including utilizing all avenues of appeal, if necessary. Notwithstanding the Company’s views on the merits, litigation is inherently subject to many uncertainties, and the Company ultimately may not prevail. Adverse court rulings or determinations of liability, among other factors, could affect the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation against the Company and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future claims and proceedings. In addition, from time to time, various legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted, promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company and other manufacturers have been successful. Due to the uncertainties involved, management is unable to predict the outcome of the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation, the number or nature of possible future claims and proceedings or the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations may have on the litigation or against the Company. In addition, management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the potential costs and liabilities related to such litigation, or resulting from any such legislation and regulations. Except with respect to the litigation in California discussed below, the Company has not accrued any amounts for such litigation because the Company does not believe it is probable that a loss has occurred, and the Company believes it is not possible to estimate the range of potential losses as there is no substantive information upon which an estimate could be based. In addition, any potential liability that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations cannot reasonably be estimated. Due to the uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in such litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s results of operations, cash flow, liquidity or financial condition cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties. Public Nuisance Claim Litigation . The Company and other companies are or were defendants in legal proceedings seeking recovery based on public nuisance liability theories, among other theories, brought by the State of Rhode Island; the City of St. Louis, Missouri; various cities and counties in the State of New Jersey; various cities in the State of Ohio and the State of Ohio; the City of Chicago, Illinois; the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; the County of Santa Clara, California, and other public entities in the State of California; and Lehigh and Montgomery Counties in Pennsylvania. Except for the Santa Clara County, California proceeding and the pending Pennsylvania proceedings, all of these legal proceedings have been concluded in favor of the Company and other defendants at various stages in the proceedings. Santa Clara County, California Proceeding . The Santa Clara County, California proceeding was initiated in March 2000 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. After nearly twenty years of litigation, the Company and two other defendants (ConAgra Grocery Products Company and NL Industries, Inc.) reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to resolve the litigation on July 17, 2019. The agreement provides that, in full and final satisfaction of any and all claims of the plaintiffs, the defendants collectively shall pay a total of $305.0 million, with the defendants each paying approximately $101.7 million as follows: (i) an initial payment of $25.0 million within sixty days after the entry of a dismissal order and judgment; (ii) subsequent annual payments of $12.0 million one year after the initial payment and for a period of four years thereafter; and (iii) a final payment of approximately $16.7 million on the sixth anniversary of the initial payment. Should NL Industries fail to make any of its payments required under the agreement, the Company has agreed to backstop and pay on behalf of NL Industries a maximum amount of $15.0 million. On July 24, 2019, the trial court approved the agreement, discharged the receiver, and granted a judgment of dismissal with prejudice in favor of the defendants. At March 31, 2022 and 2021, the Company had accruals for this agreement reported on the balance sheet of $52.7 million and $64.7 million, respectively, with $12.0 million included in Current liabilities and the remaining $40.7 million and $52.7 million, respectively, included in Other long-term liabilities. Pennsylvania Proceedings . Two proceedings in Pennsylvania were initiated in October 2018. The Pennsylvania counties of Montgomery and Lehigh filed complaints against the Company and several other former lead-based paint and lead pigment manufacturers in the Courts of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania and Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, respectively. In both actions, the counties request declaratory relief establishing the existence of a public nuisance and the defendants’ contribution to it, the abatement of an ongoing public nuisance arising from the presence of lead-based paint in housing throughout the applicable county, an injunction against future illicit conduct, and the costs of litigation and attorneys’ fees. After the defendants removed the actions to federal court and the actions were remanded to state court, the defendants filed preliminary objections on December 21, 2020, seeking to dismiss the complaints with prejudice. In the Lehigh County action, the trial court denied the defendants’ preliminary objections on August 6, 2021. Defendants filed a motion to amend the order to allow an interlocutory appeal or, in the alternative, for reconsideration. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion on September 13, 2021. On September 27, 2021, the Company answered the complaint, asserted new matter and affirmative defenses, alleged counterclaims against Lehigh County, and filed a third-party complaint against certain County officials, other owners of pre-1980 housing, and lead abatement contractors who have been cited for violating state or local laws. On October 13, 2021, the defendants filed with the Superior Court, one of Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate courts, a petition for permission to appeal the trial court’s order denying the defendants’ preliminary objections. On November 17, 2021, the Superior Court transferred the appeal to the Commonwealth Court, another one of Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate courts. In the Montgomery County action, the trial court denied the defendants’ preliminary objections on October 15, 2021. The defendants filed a motion to amend the order overruling their preliminary objections to allow an interlocutory appeal, which the trial court granted on November 9, 2021. On December 3, 2021, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal with the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court granted the defendants’ petitions for permission to appeal in both the Montgomery County and Lehigh County actions on February 18, 2022, and stayed all proceedings in the trial courts pending the appellate court proceedings. The Company’s opening appellate briefs in both actions are due on May 18, 2022. Litigation seeking damages from alleged personal injury. The Company and other companies are defendants in a number of legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from alleged personal injuries. These proceedings include claims by children allegedly injured from ingestion of lead pigment or lead-containing paint and claims for damages allegedly incurred by the children’s parents or guardians. These proceedings generally seek compensatory and punitive damages, and seek other relief including medical monitoring costs. These proceedings include purported claims by individuals, groups of individuals and class actions. The plaintiff in Thomas v. Lead Industries Association, et al., initiated an action in Wisconsin state court against the Company, other alleged former lead pigment manufacturers and the Lead Industries Association in September 1999. The claims against the defendants included strict liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentation and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy and enterprise liability. Implicit within these claims is the theory of “risk contribution” liability (Wisconsin’s theory is similar to market share liability, except that liability can be joint and several) due to the plaintiff’s inability to identify the manufacturer of any product that allegedly injured the plaintiff. The case ultimately proceeded to trial and, on November 5, 2007, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the plaintiff had ingested white lead carbonate, but was not brain damaged or injured as a result. The plaintiff appealed, and on December 16, 2010, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in favor of the defendants. Wisconsin is the only jurisdiction to date to apply a theory of liability with respect to alleged personal injury (i.e., risk contribution/market share liability) that does not require the plaintiff to identify the manufacturer of the product that allegedly injured the plaintiff in the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. Although the risk contribution liability theory was applied during the Thomas trial, the constitutionality of this theory as applied to the lead pigment cases has not been judicially determined by the Wisconsin state courts. However, in an unrelated action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., on November 15, 2010, the district court held that Wisconsin’s risk contribution theory as applied in that case violated the defendants’ right to substantive due process and is unconstitutionally retroactive. The district court’s decision in Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., was appealed by the plaintiff to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On July 24, 2014, the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. On January 16, 2015, the defendants filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Seventh Circuit’s decision, and on May 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied the defendants’ petition. The case is currently pending in the district court. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin consolidated three cases (Ravon Owens v. American Cyanamid, et al., Cesar Sifuentes v. American Cyanamid, et al., and Glenn Burton, Jr. v. American Cyanamid, et al.) for purposes of trial. A trial was held in May 2019 and resulted in a jury verdict for the three plaintiffs in the amount of $2.0 million each for a total of $6.0 million against the Company and two other defendants (Armstrong Containers Inc. and E.I. du Pont de Nemours). After post-trial motions resulted in the damages award to plaintiff Glenn Burton, Jr. being reduced to $800,000, the Company filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On April 15, 2021, the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgments and held that the Company was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all claims filed by the three plaintiffs . The plaintiffs filed a petition with the Seventh Circuit on April 27, 2021, seeking a rehearing en banc and, in the alternative, a request for certification of questions to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The plaintiffs’ petition was denied by the Seventh Circuit on May 12, 2021. In Maniya Allen, et al. v. American Cyanamid, et al., also pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, cases involving six of the 146 plaintiffs were selected for discovery. In Dijonae Trammell, et al. v. American Cyanamid, et al., also pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, discovery for one of the three plaintiffs was consolidated with the six Allen cases referenced above. The parties selected four of the cases to proceed to expert discovery and to prepare for trial. The district court previously issued an order scheduling trial in the four cases to commence on June 15, 2020, but the trial date was continued due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and no new trial date has been scheduled. On May 20, 2021, the Company and the three other defendants filed motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims of all plaintiffs then pending in the district court as a result of the Seventh Circuit’s decision in favor of the Company in the Owens, Sifuentes and Burton cases. On March 3, 2022, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants on all claims then pending in the district court. On March 31, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to alter or amend the judgment. The Company and the other defendants opposed the motion on April 21, 2022. On August 24, 2021, the plaintiff in Arrieona Beal v. Armstrong Containers, Inc., et al. filed an amended complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, naming the Company and other alleged former lead pigment manufacturers as defendants pursuant to the risk contribution liability theory. The defendants answered the plaintiff’s complaint on December 17, 2021. On March 2, 2022, the plaintiff filed a motion for declaratory judgment seeking to clarify Wisconsin law following the Seventh Circuit’s decision in favor of the Company in the Owens, Sifuentes and Burton cases. On March 25, 2022, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the state circuit court on April 7, 2022. The Company’s response to the declaratory judgment motion was filed in federal court on April 15, 2022, and the Company’s opposition to the motion to remand is due to be filed on April 28, 2022. Other lead-based paint and lead pigment litigation. In Mary Lewis v. Lead Industries Association, et al. pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, parents seek to recover the cost of their children’s blood lead testing against the Company and three other defendants that made (or whose alleged corporate predecessors made) white lead pigments. The circuit court had certified a statewide class and a Chicago subclass of parents or legal guardians of children who lived in high-risk zip codes identified by the Illinois Department of Health and who were screened for lead toxicity between August 1995 and February 2008. Excluded from the class were those parents or guardians who have incurred no expense, liability or obligation to pay for the cost of their children’s blood lead testing. In 2017, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the three named plaintiffs have not paid and have no obligation or liability to pay for their children’s blood lead testing because Medicaid paid for the children of two plaintiffs and private insurance paid for the third plaintiff without any evidence of a co-pay or deductible. The circuit court granted the motion, but on September 7, 2018, the appellate court reversed with respect to the two plaintiffs for whom Medicaid paid for their children’s testing. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois, and on May 21, 2020, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment, affirmed the circuit court’s summary judgment dismissing the claims of the two plaintiffs for whom Medicaid paid for their children’s testing, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision. On August 19, 2020, the defendants filed their renewed motion for class decertification and entry of final judgment with the circuit court. The parties filed their respective briefs on the motion, and oral argument occurred on February 4, 2021. On March 8, 2021, the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services filed a petition to intervene and a proposed amended complaint, which would eliminate the class and all prior claims by individual plaintiffs and would propose a subrogation claim by the State agency to recover its expenditures for blood lead testing. Defendants opposed the petition to intervene, and briefing on the petition concluded. A hearing on the petition to intervene occurred on August 10, 2021. On October 8, 2021, the circuit court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion for decertification of the class, denying the petition to intervene by the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, and noting that an entry of final judgment in the defendants’ favor was now appropriate. On October 19, 2021, the circuit court entered final judgment in favor of the defendants. On November 5, 2021, the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services filed a Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. Insurance coverage litigation. The Company and its liability insurers, including certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, initiated legal proceedings against each other to determine, among other things, whether the costs and liabilities associated with the abatement of lead pigment are covered under certain insurance policies issued to the Company. The insurers’ action, which was filed on February 23, 2006 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, has been dismissed. The Company’s action, filed on March 3, 2006 in the Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, previously was stayed and inactive. On January 9, 2019, the Company filed an unopposed motion to lift the stay with the trial court, which was granted, allowing the case to proceed. On June 28, 2019, the Company and its liability insurers each filed separate motions for summary judgment seeking various forms of relief. The trial court entered an order on December 4, 2020, granting the insurers’ motion for summary judgment, denying the Company’s motion, and entering final judgment in favor of the insurers. The trial court sided with the Company on all of the issues presented, except one. On December 21, 2020, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, and the insurers filed cross-appeals. Briefing on the issues concluded, and oral argument occurred on August 25, 2021. The insurers then filed on January 13, 2022, a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief to address the Eighth Appellate District’s recent decision in Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Discount Drug Mart, Inc. The Company filed a response to the insurers’ motion on January 19, 2022. On March 25, 2022, the Company filed a notice of additional authority, submitting a March 24, 2022 decision from the New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al., v. NL Industries, Inc., et al. The insurers filed a response to the notice on April 1, 2022. On April 20, 2022, the insurers filed a notice of additional authority, submitting an April 19, 2022 decision from the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate Division in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. The Company filed a response to the notice on April 25, 2022. The parties are awaiting the appellate court’s decision. An ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation would mean that insurance proceeds could be unavailable under the policies at issue to mitigate any ultimate abatement related costs and liabilities. The Company has not recorded any assets related to these insurance policies or otherwise assumed that proceeds from these insurance policies would be received in estimating any contingent liability accrual. Therefore, an ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation without a determination of liability against the Company in the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation will have no impact on the Company’s results of operation, liquidity or financial condition. As previously stated, however, except with respect to the litigation in California discussed above, the Company has not accrued any amounts for the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation and any significant liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company relating to such litigation may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. Other litigation. On December 18, 2019, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the Administrator of the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division in Camden County, New Jersey. The plaintiffs s |
