Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Guarantees

Indemnifications

In connection with acquisitions and divestitures as of March 31, 2017, 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 transactions. 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. Additionally, in connection with the Separation, the company has directly guaranteed Chemours' purchase obligations under an agreement with a third party supplier. At March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the company had directly guaranteed $356 and $354, 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 20 percent of the $176 of guaranteed obligations of customers and suppliers.

Set forth below are the company's guaranteed obligations at March 31, 2017:



	Short-Term		Long-Term		Total
Obligations for customers and suppliers¹:
Bank borrowings (terms up to 5 years)	$	167	$	9	$	176
Obligations for equity affiliates²:
Bank borrowings (terms up to 1 year)	165		—		165
Obligations for Chemours³:
Chemours' purchase obligations (final expiration - 2018)	15		—		15
Total	$	347	$	9	$	356


^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. At March 31, 2017, DuPont has a total accrual balance of $686 related to the PFOA matters discussed below and has recorded a total indemnification asset of $350 from Chemours pursuant to the Separation Agreement discussed in Note 3 and the first quarter 2017 agreement between Chemours and DuPont.

Leach v. DuPont

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, (the Leach Settlement). 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 Leach Settlement Agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the Leach 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 for the six human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. 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. Under the Leach Settlement Agreement, 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. The balance in the escrow account 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 March 31, 2017 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 Leach 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.

Multi-District Litigation

Leach class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for the six human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. At March 31, 2017, there were approximately 3,550 lawsuits, of which about 30 allege wrongful death, 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).

The table below approximates the number of lawsuits based on primary alleged disease.



Alleged Injury	Number of Claims
Kidney cancer	210
Testicular cancer	70
Ulcerative colitis	300
Preeclampsia	200
Thyroid disease	1,430
High cholesterol	1,340

In February 2017, DuPont entered into an agreement in principle with 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 the cases captioned Bartlett v. DuPont, Freeman v. DuPont, Moody v. DuPont and Vigneron v. DuPont, (the MDL Trial Plaintiffs).

In connection with all filed and unfiled personal injury cases and claims that are part of the plaintiffs' counsel's claim inventory, on March 31, 2017, DuPont and MDL plaintiffs’ counsel entered into a definitive agreement covering Leach class members who either, 1) asserted a qualifying claim, not previously settled, withdrawn or dismissed as of February 11, 2017; or 2) claimed to have a qualifying condition and on or before February 11, 2017, had retained counsel for purposes of making a qualifying claim,(the Master Settlement Agreement). Also on March 31, 2017, DuPont and MDL plaintiffs’ counsel entered into a definitive agreement related to the MDL Trial Plaintiffs (the MDL Trial Plaintiffs Settlement Agreement). The Master Settlement Agreement and the MDL Trial Plaintiffs Settlement Agreement (collectively referred to as the MDL Settlement) are not subject to court approval.

The aggregate total settlement amount under the MDL Settlement is $670.7 in cash. DuPont and Chemours have agreed that half of that amount will be paid by Chemours and half by DuPont. DuPont’s payment would not be subject to indemnification or reimbursement by Chemours. In exchange for that payment, DuPont and Chemours will receive a complete release of all claims by the settling plaintiffs. 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. The Master Settlement Agreement includes a "Walk-Away Right" that allows DuPont to terminate the settlement if required participation thresholds are not met for any disease category. Whether those thresholds are met will be determined in accordance with the Master Settlement Agreement at various dates into the third quarter 2017, subject to extension. The Master Settlement Agreement will not be deemed effective until the date on which the parties agree that the required participation thresholds have been met (the MSA Effective Date).

In connection with the MDL Settlement, the company increased the accrual related to the PFOA multi-district litigation to $670.7 at March 31, 2017, (the MDL Settlement Accrual). Due to the first quarter 2017 agreement with Chemours discussed above, the company increased the indemnification asset related to the PFOA multi-district litigation to $335 at March 31, 2017. The remainder of the MDL Settlement Accrual amount was recorded as a charge of $335 ($224 net of tax) to loss from discontinued operations in the company's interim Consolidated Income Statement during the three months ended March 31, 2017.

DuPont and Chemours have also agreed, subject to and following the MSA Effective Date, to a limited sharing of potential future PFOA liabilities (i.e., indemnifiable losses, as defined in the Separation Agreement) for a period of 5 years, starting on the MSA Effective Date. During that five-year period, Chemours would annually pay future PFOA liabilities up to $25 and, if such amount is exceeded, DuPont would 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 liabilities. After the five-year period, this limited sharing agreement would expire, and Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the Separation Agreement would continue unchanged. Chemours has also agreed that, upon the occurrence of the MSA Effective Date, it will not contest its liability to DuPont under the Separation Agreement for PFOA liabilities 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 liabilities. Chemours has, however, retained defenses as to whether any particular PFOA claim is within the scope of the indemnification provisions of the Separation Agreement.

Status of MDL Post MDL Settlement

In 2014, six cases from the MDL were selected for individual trial. In 2016, three of these cases, (two kidney cancer cases and one ulcerative colitis case), were settled for amounts immaterial individually and in the aggregate, and one case was voluntarily withdrawn by plaintiffs.

Three other cases were tried to verdict in 2015 (Bartlett v. DuPont, kidney cancer), 2016 (Freeman v. DuPont, testicular cancer), and 2017 (Vigneron v. DuPont, testicular cancer), and a fourth trial (Moody v. DuPont, testicular cancer) began in 2017 and was still underway at the time of the MDL Trial Plaintiffs Settlement Agreement. The Bartlett jury awarded compensatory damages of $1.6 and no punitive damages. That verdict was on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at the time of the MDL Trial Plaintiffs Settlement Agreement. The Freeman jury awarded compensatory damages of $5.1 and $0.5 in punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The Vigneron jury awarded compensatory damages of $2 and punitive damages of $10.5. Post-trial motions in Freeman and Vigeron were still pending at the time of the MDL Trial Plaintiffs Settlement Agreement.

As a result of the MDL Settlement, all litigation and judicial proceedings related to the MDL pending before the Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit have been stayed (the MDL Stay). At March 31, 2017, the MDL Settlement Accrual reflects management’s best estimate of MDL-related loss. If the Master Settlement Agreement is terminated or otherwise does not proceed, additional lawsuits could go to trial or appeal over the course of many years. In this event, management would consider the outcomes of such rulings, trials and appeals, the uniqueness of the individual MDL plaintiff’s claims and the defenses to those claims, both as to potential liability and damages on an individual claim basis, among other factors, in reviewing its estimate of or ability to reasonably estimate loss.

Additional Actions

Since 2006, DuPont has undertaken obligations under agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including a 2009 consent decree under the Safe Drinking Water Act (the Order), 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. In January 2017, EPA announced it had amended the Order to include Chemours, and to make the new health advisory level the trigger for additional actions by the companies, thus expanding the obligations to the EPA beyond the previously established testing and water supply commitments around the Washington Works facility. The company's accrual balance at March 31, 2017, include $15 related to these obligations and voluntary commitments.

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 2016 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), the 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 March 31, 2017, the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet included a liability of $487, 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 $775 above the amount accrued as of March 31, 2017. Pursuant to the Separation Agreement discussed in Note 3, the company is indemnified by Chemours for certain environmental matters, included in the liability of $487, that have an estimated liability of $265 as of March 31, 2017, and a potential exposure that ranges up to approximately $400 above the amount accrued. As such, the company has recorded an indemnification asset of $265 corresponding to the company’s accrual balance related to these matters at March 31, 2017.