Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Guarantees

Indemnifications

In connection with acquisitions and divestitures, 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. At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the company had directly guaranteed $510 and $561, 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 42 percent of the $321 of guaranteed obligations of customers and suppliers. Set forth below are the company's guaranteed obligations at June 30, 2014:



	Short-Term		Long-Term		Total
Obligations for customers and suppliers¹:
Bank borrowings (terms up to 7 years)	$	249	$	70	$	319
Leases on equipment and facilities (terms up to 4 years)	—		2		2
Obligations for equity affiliates²:
Bank borrowings (terms less than 1 year)	189		—		189
Total	$	438	$	72	$	510


¹	Existing guarantees for customers and suppliers, as part of contractual agreements.


²	Existing guarantees for equity affiliates' liquidity needs in normal operations.

Imprelis^®

The company has received claims and has been served with multiple lawsuits alleging that the use of Imprelis^® herbicide caused damage to certain trees. Sales of Imprelis^® were suspended in August 2011 and the product was last applied during the 2011 spring application season. The lawsuits seeking class action status were consolidated in multidistrict litigation in federal court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In February 2014, the court entered the final order dismissing these lawsuits as a result of the class action settlement. The appeal by one class member was resolved in the second quarter 2014.

As part of the settlement, DuPont paid about $7 in plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses. In addition, DuPont is providing a warranty against new damage, if any, caused by the use of Imprelis^® on class members' properties through May 2015. Certain class members opted out of the settlement. The opt-outs have filed about 125 individual actions encompassing about 420 claims for property and related damage in state court in various jurisdictions. DuPont has removed most of these cases to federal court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Once removed to federal court, the individual actions remain stayed pending further action by the court.

The company has established review processes to verify and evaluate damage claims. There are several variables that impact the evaluation process including the number of trees on a property, the species of tree with reported damage, the height of the tree, the extent of damage and the possibility for trees to naturally recover over time. Upon receiving claims, DuPont verifies their accuracy and validity which often requires physical review of the property.

At June 30, 2014, DuPont had recorded charges of $1,175, within other operating charges, to resolve these claims, which represents the company's best estimate of the loss associated with resolving these claims. The company did not take any charges related to this matter during the three and six months ended June 30, 2014. The three and six months ended June 30, 2013 included charges of $80 and $115, respectively. At June 30, 2014, DuPont had accruals of $364 related to these claims. The company has an applicable insurance program with a deductible equal to the first $100 of costs and expenses. The insurance program limits are $725 for costs and expenses in excess of the $100. Insurance recoveries are recognized when realized. DuPont has submitted and will continue to submit requests for payment to its insurance carriers for costs associated with this matter. The company has begun to receive payment from its insurance carriers and continues to seek recovery although the timing and outcome remain uncertain. To date the company has recognized and received insurance recoveries of $73.

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. Except as otherwise noted, management does not anticipate their resolution will have a materially adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial position or liquidity. However, the ultimate liabilities could be significant 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. At June 30, 2014, DuPont has accruals of $14 related to the PFOA matters discussed below.

The accrual includes charges related to DuPont's obligations under agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 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 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 Provisional Health Advisory.

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. The medical panel is expected to address monitoring and may make additional recommendations in a subsequent report. The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion. The company is obligated to fund up to $235 for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members. In January 2012, the company put $1 in an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The court has appointed the Director of Medical Monitoring, who is in the process of setting up a program, to implement the medical panel's recommendations. Testing has not yet begun and no money has been disbursed from the fund.

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 June 30, 2014, there were approximately 2,290 lawsuits filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia of which about 400 had been served on DuPont, an increase of about 1,000 in the number of lawsuits filed and 300 in the number of lawsuits served, respectively, over March 31, 2014. These lawsuits have been or will be consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio federal court (“MDL”). These lawsuits allege personal injury and 7 of them allege wrongful death from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. Based on comments from attorneys for the plaintiffs, DuPont expects additional lawsuits may be filed. In the MDL a “discovery pool” of 20 plaintiffs has been established from which individual cases will be selected for the initial trials. The first trial is scheduled to begin in September 2015, and the second in November 2015. DuPont denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously.

Additional Actions

An Ohio action brought by the LHWA is ongoing. In addition to general claims of PFOA contamination of drinking water, the action claims “imminent and substantial endangerment to health and or the environment” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In the second quarter 2014, DuPont filed a motion for summary judgment which if granted, will be dispositive of this matter. The LHWA has moved for partial summary judgment. DuPont denies these claims and is defending itself vigorously.

While it is probable that the company will incur losses related to funding the medical monitoring program, such losses cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties surrounding implementation. DuPont believes that it is reasonably possible that it could incur losses related to the other PFOA matters discussed above; however, a range of such losses, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

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 2013 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 June 30, 2014, the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet included a liability of $474, 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, potential liability may range up to three times the amount accrued as of June 30, 2014.