| Commitments and Contingent Liabilities |
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Guarantees Indemnifications In connection with acquisitions and divestitures as of September 30, 2016, the company has indemnified respective parties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with these transactions and business activities prior to the completion of the transaction. The term of these indemnifications, which typically pertain to environmental, tax and product liabilities, is generally indefinite. In addition, the company indemnifies its duly elected or appointed directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, against liabilities incurred as a result of their activities for the company, such as adverse judgments relating to litigation matters. If the indemnified party were to incur a liability or have a liability increase as a result of a successful claim, pursuant to the terms of the indemnification, the company would be required to reimburse the indemnified party. The maximum amount of potential future payments is generally unlimited.
Obligations for Equity Affiliates & Others The company has directly guaranteed various debt obligations under agreements with third parties related to equity affiliates, customers and suppliers. In connection with the separation, the company has directly guaranteed Chemours' purchase obligations under an agreement with a third party supplier. At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the company had directly guaranteed $319 and $337, 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 and suppliers. Assuming liquidation, these assets are estimated to cover 22 percent of the $105 of guaranteed obligations of customers and suppliers. | | | | | | | | | | | | Short-Term | Long-Term | Total | Obligations for customers and suppliers1: | |
| |
| |
| Bank borrowings (terms up to 5 years) | $ | 91 |
| $ | 14 |
| $ | 105 |
| Obligations for equity affiliates2: | |
| |
| |
| Bank borrowings (terms up to 1 year) | 181 |
| — |
| 181 |
| Obligations for Chemours3: | | | | Chemours' purchase obligations (final expiration - 2018) | 22 |
| 11 |
| 33 |
| Total | $ | 294 |
| $ | 25 |
| $ | 319 |
|
| | 1. | Existing guarantees for customers and suppliers, as part of contractual agreements. |
| | 2. | Existing guarantees for equity affiliates' liquidity needs in normal operations. |
| | 3. | Guarantee for Chemours' raw material purchase obligations under agreement with third party supplier. |
Litigation The company is subject to various legal proceedings arising out of the normal course of its business including product liability, intellectual property, commercial, environmental and antitrust lawsuits. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these various proceedings. Although considerable uncertainty exists, management does not anticipate that the ultimate disposition of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the company's results of operations, consolidated financial position or liquidity. However, the ultimate liabilities could be material to results of operations in the period recognized.
PFOA DuPont used PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt), as a processing aid to manufacture some fluoropolymer resins at various sites around the world including its Washington Works plant in West Virginia.
Since 2006, DuPont has undertaken obligations under agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and voluntary commitments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 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 national health advisory level, even if provisional, as established from time to time by EPA. A provisional health advisory level was set in 2009 at 0.4 parts per billion (ppb) for PFOA in drinking water considering episodic exposure. In May 2016, EPA announced a health advisory level of 0.07 ppb for PFOA in drinking water considering lifetime versus episodic exposure.
At September 30, 2016 DuPont had an accrual balance of $18 related to the PFOA matters discussed in this Note. The company recorded an additional $5 during the nine months ended September 30, 2016 primarily for the impact of the new health advisory level on the company's obligations to EPA which have expanded the previously established testing and water supply commitments around the Washington Works facility. Pursuant to the Separation Agreement discussed in Note 3, the company is indemnified by Chemours for PFOA matters. As a result, the company has recorded an indemnification asset of $18 corresponding to the accrual balance as of September 30, 2016.
Drinking Water Actions In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water.
DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses of $23 and made a payment of $70, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. The company funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease.
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.
In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235 for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012, the company established and put $1 into an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. Under the settlement agreement, the balance in the escrow amount must be at least $0.5; as a result, transfers of additional funds may be required periodically. The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow account; at September 30, 2016, less than $1 has been disbursed. While it is probable that the company will incur liabilities related to funding the medical monitoring program, such liabilities 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 settlement agreement, the company must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.
Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. These lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the Court). DuPont, through Chemours, denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously. As a result of plaintiffs' corrected pleadings and further discovery, in the first quarter 2016, the company revised downward to 30 the estimated number of the pending lawsuits that allege wrongful death.
In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for individual trial. One of these six cases was voluntarily withdrawn by plaintiffs. In the first case tried to verdict, captioned Bartlett v. DuPont, in October 2015, the jury awarded $1.6 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that exposure to PFOA in drinking water had caused kidney cancer. DuPont is appealing the decision. The second matter selected for trial, Wolf v. DuPont, involved allegations that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused ulcerative colitis; prior to trial, a confidential settlement for an immaterial amount was reached in the first quarter 2016. Two cases alleging that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused kidney cancer were settled in the second quarter 2016, for amounts immaterial individually and in the aggregate.
In the second case to be tried to a verdict, Freeman v. DuPont, the plaintiff alleged that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused testicular cancer. In July 2016, the jury awarded $5.1 in compensatory damages plus $0.5 in punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The company is appealing the decision.
As a result, four of the six cases have been resolved and the two that were tried to a verdict have been or will be appealed. In January 2016, the Court determined that 40 cases asserting cancer claims, to be identified by plaintiffs' attorneys, would be scheduled for trial through 2017. In July 2016, the Court scheduled the first case for trial in November 2016 and the second case for trial in January 2017. In both of these cases, plaintiffs allege that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused testicular cancer and high cholesterol. The Court announced that the remaining 38 trials would be scheduled to begin each week starting in May 2017.
An approximate breakdown of the about 3,500 lawsuits still pending in the MDL is shown below.
| | | | Alleged Injury | Number of Claims | Kidney cancer | 200 |
| Testicular cancer | 70 |
| Ulcerative colitis | 300 |
| Preeclampsia | 200 |
| Thyroid disease | 1,430 |
| High cholesterol | 1,340 |
|
This type of litigation could take place over many years and interim results do not predict the final outcome of cases. While DuPont believes it is probable that it could incur liabilities related to the lawsuits still pending in the MDL beyond the settlements discussed above, a range of such liabilities cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Given the wide range of outcomes associated with the six initial cases in the MDL as discussed above, including two cases that have been or will be appealed, the company does not believe activity to date provides a reasonable basis to derive a range of loss for the remaining lawsuits still pending in the MDL in total or by category of claim. The possible range of loss is unpredictable and involves significant uncertainty due to the uniqueness of the remaining, individual plaintiff's claims and the company's defenses to those claims both as to potential liability and damages on an individual claims basis, among other factors.
The Court has ordered the parties to participate in confidential, nonbinding mediation regarding global resolution of the MDL. This process is ongoing.
Additional Actions In the first quarter 2016, a confidential settlement was reached in the Ohio action brought by the LHWA claiming, “imminent and substantial endangerment to health and or the environment” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in addition to general claims of PFOA contamination of drinking water. The cost of the settlement was paid by Chemours.
Under the Separation Agreement, all liabilities associated with the PFOA matters discussed above, including liabilities related to judgments, including punitive damages, or settlements associated with the MDL, are subject to indemnification by Chemours.
Environmental The company is also subject to contingencies pursuant to environmental laws and regulations that in the future may require the company to take further action to correct the effects on the environment of prior disposal practices or releases of chemical or petroleum substances by the company or other parties. The company accrues for environmental remediation activities consistent with the policy as described in the company's 2015 Annual Report in Note 1, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.” Much of this liability results from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, often referred to as Superfund), RCRA and similar state and global laws. These laws require the company to undertake certain investigative, remediation and restoration activities at sites where the company conducts or once conducted operations or at sites where company-generated waste was disposed. The accrual also includes estimated costs related to a number of sites identified by the company for which it is probable that environmental remediation will be required, but which are not currently the subject of enforcement activities.
Remediation activities vary substantially in duration and cost from site to site. These activities, and their associated costs, depend on the mix of unique site characteristics, evolving remediation technologies, diverse regulatory agencies and enforcement policies, as well as the presence or absence of potentially responsible parties. At September 30, 2016, the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet included a liability of $497, relating to these matters and, in management's opinion, is appropriate based on existing facts and circumstances. The average time frame over which the accrued or presently unrecognized amounts may be paid, based on past history, is estimated to be 15-20 years. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to these costs and, under adverse changes in circumstances, the potential liability may range up to $976 above the amount accrued as of September 30, 2016. Pursuant to the Separation Agreement discussed in Note 3, the company is indemnified by Chemours for certain environmental matters, included in the liability of $497, that have an estimated liability of $280 as of September 30, 2016, and a potential exposure that ranges up to approximately $600 above the amount accrued. As such, the company has recorded an indemnification asset of $280 corresponding to the company’s accrual balance related to these matters at September 30, 2016. |
