Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Guarantees

Indemnifications

In connection with acquisitions and divestitures as of June 30, 2015, 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, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the company had directly guaranteed $409 and $513, 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 $229 of guaranteed obligations of customers and suppliers. Set forth below are the company's guaranteed obligations at June 30, 2015:



	Short-Term		Long-Term		Total
Obligations for customers and suppliers¹:
Bank borrowings (terms up to 7 years)	$	155	$	73	$	228
Leases on equipment and facilities (terms up to 3 years)	—		1		1
Obligations for equity affiliates²:
Bank borrowings (terms up to 1 year)	180		—		180
Total	$	335	$	74	$	409


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 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.

As part of the settlement, DuPont paid about $7 in plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses. DuPont also provided a warranty, which expired on May 31, 2015, against new damage, if any, caused by the use of Imprelis^® on class members' properties. In the third quarter 2014, the company settled the majority of claims from class members that opted out of the class action settlement. About 30 opt-out actions are pending at June 30, 2015, a decrease of 10 from December 31, 2014.

DuPont recorded income of $35 for insurance recoveries, within other operating charges in the interim Consolidated Income Statements, for the six months ended June 30, 2015. At June 30, 2015, DuPont had an accrual balance of $216 related to these claims and insurance receivables of $15.

Insurance recoveries are recognized when collection of payment is considered probable. The remaining coverage under the insurance program is $300 for costs and expenses. DuPont has submitted requests for payment to its insurance carriers for costs associated with this matter. The timing and outcome remain uncertain.

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. At June 30, 2015, DuPont has an accrual balance 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. 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 put $1 in an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. 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.

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, 2015 and March 31, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. The number of lawsuits pending at June 30, 2015, reflects the filing of about 50 additional cases and plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of about 40 cases during the second quarter 2015. In accordance with a stipulation reached in the third quarter 2014 and other court procedures, these lawsuits have been or will be served and consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio federal court (MDL). Based on information currently available to the company the majority of the lawsuits allege personal injury claims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. At June 30, 2015, 37 of the pending lawsuits allege wrongful death. While attorneys for the plaintiffs have indicated that additional lawsuits may be filed, the rate of such filings has substantially decreased. In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for individual trial. 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 and LHWA moved for partial summary judgment. In the first quarter of 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part both parties’ motions. As a result, the litigation process is continuing with respect to certain of the plaintiffs’ claims and trial has been set for October 2015.

PFOA Summary

While it is probable that the company will incur costs related to funding the medical monitoring program, such costs cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible class members and the scope of testing. 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, due to the uniqueness of the individual MDL 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.

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 2014 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), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (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, 2015, the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet included a liability of $477, 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 $1,100 above the amount accrued as of June 30, 2015.