Litigation and Contingencies (Notes)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Litigation and Contingencies

LITIGATION AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

The Company operated a leather tannery in Rockford, Michigan from the early 1900s through 2009 (the “Tannery”). The Company also owns a parcel on House Street in Plainfield Township that the Company used for the disposal of Tannery byproducts until about 1970 (the "House Street" site). Beginning in the late 1950s, the Company used 3M Company’s Scotchgard™ in its processing of certain leathers at the Tannery. Until 2002 when 3M Company changed its Scotchgard™ formula, Tannery byproducts disposed of by the Company at the House Street site and other locations may have contained PFOA and/or PFOS, two chemicals in the family of compounds known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, “PFAS”). PFOA and PFOS help provide non-stick, stain-resistant, and water-resistant qualities, and were used for many decades in commercial products like firefighting foams and metal plating, and in common consumer items like food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes, Teflon™, carpets and Scotchgard™.

In May 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced a lifetime health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion (“ppt”) combined for PFOA and PFOS, which the EPA reduced in June 2022 to 0.004 ppt and 0.02 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, respectively. In January 2018, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (“MDEQ”, now known as the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (“EGLE”)) enacted a drinking water criterion of 70 ppt combined for PFOA and PFOS, which set an official state standard for acceptable concentrations of these contaminants in groundwater used for drinking water purposes. On August 3, 2020, Michigan changed the standards for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water to 8 and 16 ppt, respectively, and set standards for four other PFAS substances.

Civil and Regulatory Actions of EGLE and EPA

On January 10, 2018, EGLE filed a civil action against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (“RCRA”) and Parts 201 and 31 of the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (“NREPA”) alleging that the Company’s past and present handling, storage, treatment, transportation and/or disposal of solid waste at the Company’s properties has resulted in releases of PFAS at levels exceeding applicable Michigan cleanup criteria for PFOA and PFOS (the "EGLE Action"). Plainfield and Algoma Townships intervened in the EGLE Action alleging claims under RCRA, NREPA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and common law nuisance.

On February 3, 2020, the parties entered into a consent decree resolving the EGLE Action, which was approved by U.S. District Judge Janet T. Neff on February 19, 2020 (the “Consent Decree”). Under the Consent Decree, the Company agreed to pay for an extension of Plainfield Township’s municipal water system to more than 1,000 properties in Plainfield and Algoma Townships, subject to an aggregate cap of $69.5 million. The Company also agreed to continue maintaining water filters for certain homeowners, resample certain residential wells for PFAS, continue remediation at the Company’s Tannery property and House Street site, and conduct further investigations and monitoring to assess the presence of PFAS in area groundwater. The Company’s activities under the Consent Decree are not materially impacted by either the drinking water standards that became effective on August 3, 2020, or the EPA’s revised advisory levels issued in June 2022.

On December 19, 2018, the Company filed a third-party complaint against 3M Company seeking, among other things, recovery of the Company’s remediation and other costs incurred in defense of the EGLE Action ("the 3M Action"). On June 20, 2019,

the 3M Company filed a counterclaim against the Company in response to the 3M Action, seeking, among other things, contractual and common law indemnity and contribution under CERCLA and Part 201 of NREPA. On February 20, 2020, the Company and 3M Company entered into a settlement agreement resolving the 3M Action, under which 3M Company paid the Company a lump sum amount of $55.0 million during the first quarter of 2020.

On January 10, 2018, the EPA entered a Unilateral Administrative Order (the “Order”) under Section 106(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9606(a) with an effective date of February 1, 2018. The Order pertained to specified removal actions at the Company's Tannery and House Street sites, including certain time critical removal actions subsequently identified in an April 29, 2019 letter from the EPA, to abate the actual or threatened release of hazardous substances at or from the sites. On October 28, 2019, the EPA and the Company entered into an Administrative Settlement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) that supersedes the Order and addresses the agreed-upon removal actions outlined in the Order. The Company has completed the activities required by the AOC, and is awaiting the final review and determination from the EPA.

The Company discusses its reserve for remediation costs in the environmental liabilities section below.

Individual and Class Action Litigation

Beginning in late 2017, individual lawsuits and three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company that raise a variety of claims, including claims related to property, remediation, and human health effects. The three putative class action lawsuits were subsequently refiled in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan as a single consolidated putative class action lawsuit. 3M Company has been named as a co-defendant in the individual lawsuits and consolidated putative class action lawsuit. In addition, the current owner of a former landfill and gravel mining operation sued the Company seeking damages and cost recovery for property damage allegedly caused by the Company’s disposal of tannery waste containing PFAS (this suit collectively with the individual lawsuits and putative class action, the “Litigation Matters”).

On January 11, 2022, the Company and 3M Company entered into a master settlement agreement with the law firm representing certain of the plaintiffs in the individual lawsuits included in the Litigation Matters, and each of these plaintiffs subsequently agreed to participate in the settlement. These plaintiffs’ lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice on or around April 25, 2022.

On December 9, 2021, the Company and 3M Company reached a settlement in principle to resolve certain of the remaining individual lawsuits included in the Litigation Matters, and the parties entered into definitive settlement agreements in March 2022. These plaintiffs’ lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice on June 14, 2022. The last remaining individual action included in the Litigation Matters was dismissed without prejudice on June 24, 2022.

In addition, in September 2022, the parties to the putative class action filed a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement seeking to resolve the putative class action plaintiffs’ claims (the “Motion for Preliminary Approval”). On September 19, 2022, the court granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval and scheduled a final approval hearing regarding the settlement for March 29, 2023.

Only one of the Litigation Matters, the lawsuit filed by the current owner of a former landfill and gravel mining operations, remains pending in Michigan state court, and it is in the discovery and motions stages of litigation.

For certain of the Litigation Matters described above and as a result of developments during 2022, the Company has increased its accrual by $40.5 million since January 1, 2022 and made related payments of $50.1 million. As of December 31, 2022, the Company had recorded liabilities of $40.5 million for certain of the Litigation Matters described above which are recorded as other accrued liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.

In December 2018, the Company filed a lawsuit against certain of its historic liability insurers, seeking to compel them to provide a defense against the Litigation Matters on the Company's behalf and coverage for remediation efforts undertaken by, and indemnity provided by, the Company. The Company recognized certain recoveries from legacy insurance policies in 2022 and 2021, and continues pursing additional recoveries through the lawsuit.

Other Litigation

The Company is also involved in litigation incidental to its business and is a party to legal actions and claims, including, but not limited to, those related to employment, intellectual property, and consumer related matters. Some of the legal proceedings include claims for compensatory as well as punitive damages. While the final outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, considering, among other things, the meritorious legal defenses available to the Company and reserves for liabilities that the Company has recorded, along with applicable insurance, it is management’s opinion that the outcome of these

items are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Environmental Liabilities

The following is a summary of the activity with respect to the environmental remediation reserve established by the Company:

	Fiscal Year
(In millions)	2022		2021
Remediation liability at beginning of the year	$	85.7	$	101.8
Changes in estimate	6.8		—
Amounts paid	(18.4)		(16.1)
Remediation liability at the end of the year	$	74.1	$	85.7

The reserve balance as of December 31, 2022 includes $49.8 million that is expected to be paid within the next twelve months and is recorded as a current obligation in other accrued liabilities, with the remaining $24.3 million expected to be paid over the course of up to 25 years, recorded in other liabilities.

The Company's remediation activity at the Tannery property, House Street site and other relevant operations or disposal sites is ongoing. Although the Consent Decree has made near-term costs more clear, it is difficult to estimate the long-term cost of environmental compliance and remediation given the uncertainties regarding the interpretation and enforcement of applicable environmental laws and regulations, the extent of environmental contamination and the existence of alternative cleanup methods. Future developments may occur that could materially change the Company’s current cost estimates, including, but not limited to: (i) changes in the information available regarding the environmental impact of the Company’s operations and products; (ii) changes in environmental regulations, changes in permissible levels of specific compounds in drinking water sources, or changes in enforcement theories and policies, including efforts to recover natural resource damages; (iii) new and evolving analytical and remediation techniques; (iv) changes to the form of remediation; (v) success in allocating liability to other potentially responsible parties; and (vi) the financial viability of other potentially responsible parties and third-party indemnitors. For locations at which remediation activity is largely ongoing, the Company cannot estimate a possible loss or range of loss in excess of the associated established reserves for the reasons described above. The Company adjusts recorded liabilities as further information develops or circumstances change.

Minimum Royalties and Advertising Commitments

The Company has future minimum royalty and advertising obligations due under the terms of certain licenses held by the Company. These minimum future obligations for the fiscal years subsequent to December 31, 2022 are as follows:

(In millions)	2023		2024		2025		2026		2027		Thereafter
Minimum royalties	$	1.0	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Minimum advertising	3.9		3.9		4.2		4.3		4.4		4.6

Minimum royalties are based on both fixed obligations and assumptions regarding the Consumer Price Index. Royalty obligations in excess of minimum requirements are based upon future sales levels. In accordance with these agreements, the Company incurred royalty expense of $2.3 million, $2.3 million and $1.9 million for fiscal years 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

The terms of certain license agreements also require the Company to make advertising expenditures based on the level of sales of the licensed products. In accordance with these agreements, the Company incurred advertising expense of $6.5 million, $6.5 million and $2.5 million for fiscal years 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively.