Note 13. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Litigation

In addition to the matters discussed below, Chemours, by virtue of its status as a subsidiary of DuPont prior to the separation, is subject to or required under the separation-related agreements executed prior to the separation to indemnify DuPont against various pending legal proceedings arising out of the normal course of Chemours’ business including product liability, intellectual property, commercial, environmental and antitrust lawsuits. It is not possible to predict the outcomes of these various proceedings. Except for the litigation specific to PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt) and Fayetteville, North Carolina for which separate assessments are provided below, while management believes it is reasonably possible that Chemours could incur losses in excess of the amounts accrued, if any, for the aforementioned proceedings, it does not believe any such loss would have a material impact on Chemours’ consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Disputes between Chemours and DuPont may also arise with respect to indemnification matters, including disputes based on matters of law or contract interpretation. If and to the extent these disputes arise, they could materially adversely affect Chemours.

(a)

Asbestos

In the separation, DuPont assigned its asbestos docket to Chemours. At September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, there were approximately 1,600 and 1,900 lawsuits pending, respectively, against DuPont alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between 1950 and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by DuPont employees or household members of contractors or DuPont employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to DuPont products.

At September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, Chemours had an accrual of $41 related to this matter. Chemours reviews this estimate and related assumptions quarterly. Management believes that the likelihood is remote that Chemours would incur losses in excess of the amounts accrued in connection with this matter.

(b)

Benzene

In the separation, DuPont assigned its benzene docket to Chemours. As of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, there were 20 and 27 cases pending against DuPont alleging benzene-related illnesses, respectively. These cases consist of premises matters involving contractors and deceased former employees who claim exposure to benzene while working at DuPont sites primarily in the 1960s through the 1980s, and product liability claims based on alleged exposure to benzene found in trace amounts in aromatic hydrocarbon solvents used to manufacture DuPont products such as paints, thinners and reducers.

A benzene case (Hood v. DuPont) was tried to a verdict in Texas state court on October 20, 2015. Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Hood’s Acute Myelogenous Leukemia was the result of 24 years of occupational exposure to trace benzene found in DuPont automotive paint products and that DuPont negligently failed to warn him that its paints, reducers and thinners contained benzene that could cause cancer or leukemia. The jury found in the plaintiffs’ favor, awarding $6.9 in compensatory damages and $1.5 in punitive damages. In March 2016, acting on the Company’s motion, the court struck the punitive award. Through DuPont, Chemours has filed an appeal on the remaining award based upon substantial errors made at the trial court level. Plaintiffs have filed a cross appeal.

Management believes that a loss is reasonably possible related to these matters; however, given the evaluation of each benzene matter is highly fact-driven and impacted by disease, exposure and other factors, a range of such losses cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

(c)

PFOA

Prior to the fourth quarter of 2014, the performance chemicals segment of DuPont made PFOA at its Fayetteville, North Carolina plant and used PFOA as a processing aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers at certain sites including: Washington Works, Parkersburg, West Virginia; Chambers Works, Deepwater, New Jersey; Dordrecht Works, Netherlands; Changshu Works, China; and Shimizu, Japan. These sites are now owned and/or operated by Chemours.

Chemours recorded accruals of $15 and $349 related to the PFOA matters discussed below at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Specific to the PFOA MDL Settlement (also discussed below), the Company recorded an accrual of $335 at December 31, 2016, which was paid in installments of $15 and $320 during the second and third quarters of 2017, respectively.

These accruals also include charges related to DuPont’s obligations under agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and voluntary commitments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. These obligations and voluntary commitments include surveying, sampling and testing drinking water in and around certain Company sites 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. A provisional health advisory level was set by the EPA in 2009 at 0.4 parts per billion (ppb) that includes PFOA in drinking water. In May 2016, the EPA announced a health advisory level of 0.07 ppb that includes PFOA in drinking water. As a result, Chemours recorded an additional $4 in the second quarter of 2016 based on management’s best estimate of the impact of the new health advisory level on the Company’s obligations to the EPA, which have expanded the testing and water supply commitments previously established. Based on prior testing, the Company has initiated additional testing and treatment in certain additional locations in and around the Chambers Works and Washington Works plants. The Company will continue to work with the EPA regarding the extent of work that may be required with respect to these matters.

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. DuPont funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (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. DuPont is obligated to fund up to $235 for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in addition, administrative cost associated with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012, DuPont, put $1 in an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring 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 is ongoing and associated payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow account. As of September 30, 2017, less than $1 has been disbursed from the escrow account related to medical monitoring. While it is probable that the Company will incur costs related to the medical monitoring program discussed above, such costs 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 Leach settlement agreement, DuPont must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well users. At separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours, which is included in the accrual amounts recorded as of September 30, 2017.

Under the Leach settlement, 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. Approximately 3,500 lawsuits were filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi-district litigation (MDL) in Ohio federal court.

Settlement of MDL between DuPont and MDL Plaintiffs

In March 2017, DuPont entered into an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs’ counsel providing for a global settlement of all cases and claims in the MDL, including all filed and unfiled personal injury cases and claims that are part of the plaintiffs’ counsel’s claim inventory, as well as cases that have been tried to a jury verdict (MDL Settlement). The total settlement amount is $670.7 in cash, with half paid by Chemours and half paid by DuPont. DuPont’s payment was not subject to indemnification or reimbursement by Chemours, and Chemours accrued $335 associated with this matter at December 31, 2016. In exchange for payment of the total settlement amount, DuPont and Chemours received a complete release of all claims by the settling plaintiffs. As described below, the settling plaintiffs include all but approximately 10 of the plaintiffs who filed cases in the MDL. The MDL Settlement was entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or fault by DuPont or Chemours. As of September 30, 2017, Chemours has paid the full $335 accrued under the MDL Settlement.

Settlement between DuPont and Chemours Related to MDL

DuPont and Chemours agreed to a limited sharing of potential future PFOA costs (indemnifiable losses, as defined in the separation agreement between DuPont and Chemours) for a period of five years. During that five-year period, Chemours will annually pay future PFOA costs up to $25 and, if such amount is exceeded, DuPont will pay any excess amount up to the next $25 (which payment will not be subject to indemnification by Chemours), with Chemours annually bearing any further excess costs under the terms of the separation agreement. After the five-year period, this limited sharing agreement will expire, and Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the separation agreement will continue unchanged. Chemours has also agreed that it will not contest its indemnification obligations to DuPont under the separation agreement for PFOA costs on the basis of ostensible defenses generally applicable to the indemnification provisions under the separation agreement, including defenses relating to punitive damages, fines or penalties or attorneys’ fees, and waives any such defenses with respect to PFOA costs. Chemours has, however, retained other defenses, including as to whether any particular PFOA claim is within the scope of the indemnification provisions of the separation agreement.

Post-MDL Settlement Injury Matters

There are approximately 10 plaintiffs who declined to participate in the MDL Settlement. Counsel representing most of these plaintiffs have filed motions to withdraw their representation.

The MDL Settlement does not resolve PFOA personal-injury claims of plaintiffs who did not have cases or claims in the MDL or personal-injury claims based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. Since the resolution of the MDL, three personal-injury cases have been filed in West Virginia courts.

Management believes that the probability of loss is reasonably possible but not estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among others, that the proceedings are in early stages and there are significant factual issues to be resolved.

Centre Water

In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama filed suit against numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia and suppliers and former suppliers, including DuPont, in Alabama state court. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance and trespass in the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into a river leading to the town’s water source, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Management believes that the probability of loss is remote.

PFOA Summary

Chemours accrued $335 associated with the MDL Settlement at December 31, 2016, of which all $335 has been paid through September 30, 2017. There could be additional lawsuits filed related to DuPont’s use of PFOA, its manufacture of PFOA or its customers’ use of DuPont products that may not be within the scope of the MDL Settlement. Any such litigation could result in Chemours incurring additional costs and liabilities. Management believes it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses related to other PFOA matters in excess of amounts accrued, but any such losses are not estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among others, that such matters are in early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved.

(d)

U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc.

Six lawsuits, including one putative class action, are pending against DuPont by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana. Five of the lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for DuPont environmental liabilities. The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages, property diminution and damages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, often referred to as Superfund). At separation, DuPont assigned Chemours its former plant site, which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund area, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at the Superfund site. DuPont has requested that Chemours defend and indemnify it, and Chemours has agreed to do so under a reservation of rights. Management believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among others, that such matters are in early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved.

(e)

Fayetteville, North Carolina

As reported in the press and noted in public statements by the Company, governmental agencies and local community members have made inquiries and engaged in discussions with the Company with respect to the discharge of the polymerization processing aid HFPO Dimer Acid (sometimes referred to as GenX or C3 Dimer) and perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds from the Company’s facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina into the Cape Fear River, groundwater and air. The Company believes that such discharges have not impacted the safety of drinking water in North Carolina. Nevertheless, to address community concerns, the Company has voluntarily commenced capturing and separately disposing certain process wastewater from the Fayetteville facility. The Company is also cooperating with a variety of ongoing inquiries and investigations from federal, state and local authorities, regulators and other governmental entities, including responding to two federal grand jury subpoenas.

On September 5, 2017, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) issued a 60-day notice of intent to suspend the permit for the Fayetteville facility and the State of North Carolina filed an action in North Carolina state court regarding the discharges seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as other relief including abatement and site correction. On September 8, 2017, a partial consent order was entered partially resolving the State’s action in return for the Company’s agreement to continue and supplement the voluntary wastewater-disposal measures it had previously commenced and to provide certain information. On October 24, 2017, NC DEQ informed the Company that, based on measures taken by the Company following September 5, 2017, it has concluded at the present time, that it is not necessary to suspend the permit for the Fayetteville facility. The Company is continuing to cooperate with and discuss these matters with the State and NC DEQ.

A number of additional actions have been filed against the Company and DuPont in North Carolina federal court relating to discharges from the Fayetteville site, including an action brought by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and one brought by Brunswick County, both seeking damages and injunctive relief, and multiple purported class actions seeking medical monitoring and property damage and/or other monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of the putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or that draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River. It is also possible that additional litigation may be filed against the Company and/or DuPont concerning the discharges. The Company believes it has valid defenses to such litigation including that the discharges did not impact the safety of drinking water or cause any damages or injury.

As these issues are in their early stages, however, it is not possible at this point to predict the timing, course or outcome of the governmental and regulatory inquiries, the notice issued by NC DEQ, the action brought by North Carolina and the other litigation, and it is possible that these matters could materially affect the Company’s results and operations. In addition, local communities, organizations and regulatory agencies have raised questions concerning HFPO Dimer Acid at certain other manufacturing sites operated by the Company, and it is possible that similar developments to those described above and centering on the Fayetteville site could arise in other locations.

Environmental

Chemours, by virtue of its status as a subsidiary of DuPont prior to the separation, is subject to contingencies pursuant to environmental laws and regulations that in the future may require further action to correct the effects on the environment of prior disposal practices or releases of chemical substances by Chemours or other parties. Much of this liability results from CERCLA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and similar state and global laws. These laws require Chemours to undertake certain investigative, remediation and restoration activities at sites where Chemours conducts or once conducted operations or at sites where Chemours-generated waste was disposed. The accrual also includes estimated costs related to a number of sites identified for which it is probable that environmental remediation will be required, but which are not currently the subject of enforcement activities.

At September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the consolidated balance sheets included a liability relating to these matters of $268 and $278, respectively, which, in management’s opinion, is appropriate based on existing facts and circumstances. The time-frame for a site to go through all phases of remediation (investigation and active clean-up) may take about 15 to 20 years, followed by several years of ongoing maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) activities. Remediation activities, including OM&M 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 requirements, as well as the presence or absence of other potentially responsible parties. In addition, for claims that Chemours may be required to indemnify DuPont pursuant to the separation-related agreements, Chemours, through DuPont, has limited available information for certain sites or is in the early stages of discussions with regulators. For these sites in particular, there may be considerable variability between the clean-up activities that are currently being undertaken or planned and the ultimate actions that could be required. Therefore, considerable uncertainty exists with respect to environmental remediation costs and, under adverse changes in circumstances, although deemed remote, the potential liability may range up to approximately $510 above the amount accrued at September 30, 2017.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, Chemours incurred environmental remediation expenses of $36 and $16, respectively.

Based on existing facts and circumstances, management does not believe that any loss, in excess of amounts accrued, related to remediation activities at any individual site will have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows in any given year, as such obligation can be satisfied or settled over many years.