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. Although it is reasonably possible that future payments may exceed amounts accrued, due to the nature of indemnified items, it is not possible to make a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential loss or range of loss. No assets are held as collateral and no specific recourse provisions exist. The carrying amounts recorded for all indemnifications as of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 were $241 and $105, respectively. The increase in the carrying amount at June 30, 2012 primarily relates to the settlement of the 2008 lawsuit filed by subsidiaries of Koch Industries, Inc. (INVISTA) alleging that certain representations and warranties in the Purchase and Sale Agreement concerning the sale of the majority of the net assets of Textiles and Interiors were breached.

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, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the company had directly guaranteed $485 and $563, 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 approximately 48 percent of the $287 of guaranteed obligations of customers and suppliers. Set forth below are the company's guaranteed obligations at June 30, 2012:



	Short-Term		Long-Term		Total
Obligations for customers and suppliers¹:
Bank borrowings (terms up to 5 years)	$	167	$	120	$	287
Obligations for equity affiliates²:
Bank borrowings (terms up to 1 year)	198		—		198
Total	$	365	$	120	$	485


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


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

Imprelis^®

The company has received claims and been served with multiple lawsuits alleging that the use of Imprelis^® herbicide caused damage to certain trees. The lawsuits seeking class action status have been consolidated in federal court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In addition, about 60 individual actions have been filed in state court in various jurisdictions. DuPont is seeking to remove these cases to federal court.

In August 2011, the company suspended sales of Imprelis^® and in September began a process to fairly resolve claims associated with the use of Imprelis^®. The deadline for property owners to file claims was February 1, 2012, although DuPont continues to receive claims at a declining rate which it expects to consider as part of the claims resolution process. However, the company believes that the number of unasserted claims is limited due to the fact that sales were suspended in August 2011 and the product was last applied during the 2011 spring application season.

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, 2012, DuPont had recorded charges of $490 related to the Imprelis^® matter, which included charges of $265 and $315 recorded during the second quarter and year-to-date 2012, respectively. It is reasonably possible that additional charges could result related to this matter. While there is a high degree of uncertainty, total charges could range as high as $575. DuPont has submitted and will continue to submit requests for payment to its insurance carriers for costs associated with this matter in excess of $100.

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 uses PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt), as a processing aid to manufacture fluoropolymer resins and dispersions at various sites around the world including its Washington Works plant in West Virginia. At June 30, 2012, DuPont has accruals of $16 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 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 is also funding a series of health studies by an independent science panel of experts (the “C8 Science Panel”) in the 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 company expects the C8 Science Panel to complete these health studies through October 2012 at a total estimated cost of $33.

In December 2011, the C8 Science Panel concluded that there is a probable link, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, which includes preeclampsia. In April 2012, the C8 Science Panel announced its probable link determinations regarding cancer and adult onset diabetes. The C8 Science Panel found a probable link between exposure to PFOA and two categories of cancer (kidney and testicular). A panel of medical experts will determine an appropriate medical monitoring protocol, if any, as a result of these findings. If a medical monitoring protocol for any of these diseases is defined, DuPont is required to fund a medical monitoring program to pay for such medical testing. Plaintiffs may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determines a probable link exists once the C8 Science Panel completes its work. In January 2012, the company put $1 in an escrow account as required by the settlement agreement. The company will reassess its liability based on the medical monitoring panel's determination since costs are not reasonably estimable until a medical monitoring protocol, if any, is identified. The company will continue to reassess its liability based on the C8 Science Panel's future probable link findings, if any, and associated medical monitoring protocols, if any. Under the settlement agreement, the company's total obligation to pay for medical monitoring cannot exceed $235. In addition, 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.

An Ohio action brought by the LHWA is currently in discovery. 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). DuPont denies these claims and is defending itself vigorously.

While DuPont believes that it is reasonably possible that it could incur losses related to PFOA matters in addition to those matters discussed above for which it has established accruals, 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 2011 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, 2012, the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet included a liability of $430, 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, 2012.

Other

The company has various purchase commitments incident to the ordinary conduct of business. In the aggregate, such commitments are not at prices in excess of current market.