In connection with acquisitions and divestitures as of December 31, 2020, 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. See pages F-26 and F-23 for additional information relating to the indemnification obligations under the Chemours Separation Agreement and the Corteva Separation Agreement.

The company has directly guaranteed various debt obligations under agreements with third parties related to customers and other third parties. At December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the company had directly guaranteed $94 million and $97 million, 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 in the event of default by the guaranteed party. Of the total maximum future payments at December 31, 2020, less than $1 million had terms greater than a year. The maximum future payments include $17 million and $16 million of guarantees related to the various factoring agreements that the company enters into with third-party financial institutions to sell its trade receivables at December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. See Note 12 - Accounts and Notes Receivable - Net, to the Consolidated Financial Statements, for additional information.

The maximum future payments also include agreements with lenders to establish programs that provide financing for select customers. The terms of the guarantees are equivalent to the terms of the customer loans that are primarily made to finance customer invoices. The total amounts owed from customers to the lenders relating to these agreements was $16 million and $27 million at December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively.

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.

The company is subject to various legal proceedings, including, but not limited to, product liability, intellectual property, antitrust, commercial, property damage, personal injury, environmental and regulatory matters arising out of the normal course of its current businesses or legacy EID businesses unrelated to Corteva’s current businesses but allocated to Corteva as part of the separation of Corteva from DuPont. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these various proceedings, as considerable uncertainty exists. However, the ultimate liabilities could be material to results of operations and the cash flows in the period recognized.

The company has entered into various agreements where the company is indemnified for certain liabilities. In connection with the recognition of liabilities related to these matters, the company records an indemnification asset when recovery is deemed probable. See Note 5 - Divestitures and Other Transactions, to the Consolidated Financial Statements, for additional information related to indemnifications.

In 2017, EID and Chemours amended the Chemours Separation Agreement to provide for a limited sharing of potential future liabilities related to alleged historical releases of perfluorooctanoic acids and its ammonium salts (“PFOA”) for a five-year period that began on July 6, 2017. In addition, in 2017, Chemours and EID each paid $335 million to settle multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (“Ohio MDL”), thereby resolving claims of about 3,550 plaintiffs alleging injury from exposure to PFOA in drinking water as a result of the historical manufacture or use of PFOA at the Washington Works plant outside Parkersburg, West Virginia. This plant was previously owned and/or operated by the performance chemicals segment of EID and is now owned and/or operated by Chemours. The 2017 settlement did not resolve claims of certain class members who did not have claims in the Ohio MDL or whose claims are based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. About 96 claims alleging personal injury were filed in the Ohio MDL since the 2017 settlement and a number of additional pre-suit claims for personal injury were asserted.

On May 13, 2019, Chemours filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against DuPont, EID, and Corteva, seeking, among other things, to limit its responsibility for the litigation and environmental liabilities allocated to and assumed by Chemours under the Chemours Separation Agreement (the “Delaware Litigation”). On March 30, 2020, the Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss. On December 15, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. Meanwhile, a confidential arbitration process regarding the same and other claims has proceeded (the “Pending Arbitration”).

On January 22, 2021, Chemours, DuPont, Corteva and EID entered into a binding memorandum of understanding containing a settlement to resolve legal disputes originating from the Delaware Litigation and Pending Arbitration, and to establish a cost sharing arrangement and escrow account to be used to support and manage potential future legacy per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) liabilities arising out of pre-July 1, 2015 conduct (the “MOU”). The MOU replaces the 2017 amendment to the Chemours Separation Agreement. According to the terms of the cost sharing arrangement within the MOU, Corteva and DuPont together, on one hand, and Chemours, on the other hand, agreed to a 50-50 split of certain qualified expenses related to PFAS liabilities incurred over a term not to exceed twenty years or $4 billion of qualified spend and escrow account contributions (see below for discussion of escrow account) in the aggregate. DuPont’s and Corteva’s 50% share under the MOU will be limited to $2 billion, including qualified expenses and escrow contributions. These expenses and escrow account contributions will be subject to the existing Letter Agreement, under which DuPont and Corteva will each bear 50% of the first $300 million (up to $150 million each), and thereafter DuPont bears 71% and Corteva bears the remaining 29%.

In order to support and manage any potential future PFAS liabilities, the parties have also agreed to establish an escrow account. The MOU provides that (1) no later than each of September 30, 2021 and September 30, 2022, Chemours shall deposit $100 million into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $100 million in the aggregate into an escrow account and (2) no later than September 30 of each subsequent year through and including 2028, Chemours shall deposit $50 million into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $50 million in the aggregate into an escrow account. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the MOU, each party may be permitted to defer funding in any year (excluding 2021). Over this period, Chemours will deposit a total of $500 million in the account and DuPont and Corteva will deposit an additional $500 million pursuant to the terms of the Letter Agreement. Additionally, if on December 31, 2028, the balance of the escrow account (including interest) is less than $700 million, Chemours will make 50% of the deposits and DuPont and Corteva together will make 50% of the deposits necessary to restore the balance of the escrow account to $700

After the term of this arrangement, Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the original 2015 Chemours Separation Agreement, would continue unchanged, subject in each case to certain exceptions set out in the MOU. Under the MOU, Chemours waived specified claims regarding the construct of its 2015 spin-off transaction, and the parties will dismiss the pending arbitration regarding those claims (as discussed below). Additionally, the parties have agreed to resolve the Ohio MDL PFOA personal injury litigation (as discussed below). The parties are expected to cooperate in good faith to enter into additional agreements reflecting the terms set forth in the MOU on or prior to February 28, 2021.

On April 1, 2019, in connection with the Dow Distribution, Corteva, DuPont and Dow entered into the Corteva Separation Agreement, the Tax Matters Agreement, the Employee Matters Agreement, and certain other agreements (collectively, the “Corteva Separation Agreements”). The Corteva Separation Agreements allocate among Corteva, DuPont and Dow certain liabilities and obligations among the parties and provides for indemnification obligation among the parties. Under the Corteva Separation Agreements, DuPont will indemnify Corteva against certain litigation, environmental, workers' compensation and other liabilities that arose prior to the Corteva Distribution and (ii) Dow indemnifies Corteva against certain litigation and other liabilities that relate to the Historical Dow business, but were transferred over as part of the common control combination with DAS, and Corteva indemnifies DuPont and Dow for certain liabilities. The term of this indemnification is generally indefinite with exceptions, and includes defense costs and expenses, as well as monetary and non-monetary settlements and judgments. See Note 1 - Background and Basis of Presentation, and Note 5 - Divestitures and Other Transactions, to the Consolidated Financial Statements, for additional information relating to the Separation.

Under the Corteva Separation Agreement, certain legacy EID liabilities from discontinued and/or divested operations and businesses of EID (including Performance Chemicals) (a “stray liability”) were allocated to Corteva or DuPont. For those stray liabilities allocated to Corteva (which may include a specified amount of liability associated with that liability), Corteva is responsible for liabilities in an amount up to that specified amount plus an additional $200 million and, for those stray liabilities allocated to DuPont (which may include a specified amount of liability associated with that liability), DuPont is responsible for liabilities up to a specified amount plus an additional $200 million. Once each company has met the $200 million threshold, Corteva and DuPont will share future liabilities proportionally on the basis of 29% and 71%, respectively; provided, however, that for PFAS, DuPont will manage such liabilities with Corteva and DuPont sharing the costs on a 50% - 50% basis starting from $1 and up to $300 million (with such amount, up to $150 million, to be credited to each company’s $200 million threshold) and once the $300 million threshold is met, then the companies will share proportionally on the basis of 29% and 71% respectively, subject to a $1 million de minimis requirement.

For purposes of this report, the term PFOA means collectively perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts, including the ammonium salt and does not distinguish between the two forms, and PFAS, which means per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, including PFOA, PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid), GenX and other perfluorinated chemicals and compounds ("PFCs").

EID is a party to various legal proceedings relating to the use of PFOA by its former Performance Chemicals segment for which potential liabilities would be subject to the cost sharing arrangement under the MOU as long as it remains effective. Management believes that it is reasonably possible that EID could incur liabilities related to PFOA in excess of amounts accrued. However, any such losses are not estimable at this time due to various reasons, including, among others, that the underlying matters are in their early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved. The company has recorded a liability of $21 million and an indemnification asset of $17 million at December 31, 2020, related to testing drinking water in and around certain former EID 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 established from time to time by the EPA.

EID has residual liabilities under its 2004 settlement of a West Virginia state court class action, Leach v. EID, which alleged that PFOA from EID’s former Washington Works facility had contaminated area drinking water supplies and affected the health of area residents. The settlement class has about 80,000 members. In addition to relief that was provided to class members years ago, the settlement requires EID to continue providing PFOA water treatment to six area water districts and private well users and to fund, through an escrow account, up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible

The Leach settlement permits class members to pursue personal injury claims for six health conditions (and no others) that an expert panel appointed under the settlement reported in 2012 had a “probable link” (as defined in the settlement) with PFOA: pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. After the panel reported its findings, approximately 3,550 personal injury lawsuits were filed in federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (“Ohio MDL”). Ohio MDL was settled in early 2017 for $670.7 million in cash, with Chemours and EID (without indemnification from Chemours) each paying half.

The 2017 Ohio MDL settlement did not resolve claims of plaintiffs who did not have claims in the Ohio MDL or whose claims are based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. The first trial for these claims, a kidney cancer case, resulted in a hung jury, while the second, Travis and Julie Abbot v. E.I du Pont de Nemours and Company (the “Abbot Case”), a testicular cancer case, resulted in a jury verdict of $40 million in compensatory damages and $10 million for loss of consortium. Following entry of the judgment by the court, EID filed post-trial motions to reduce the verdict, and to appeal the verdict on the basis of procedural and substantive legal errors made by the trial court. The company believes the merits of the appeal will be successful in reducing the jury verdict or eliminating its liability, in whole or part.

In January 2021, Chemours, DuPont and Corteva agreed to settle the remaining approximately 95 matters, as well as unfiled matters, remaining in the Ohio MDL, with the exception of the Abbot case, for $83 million, with Chemours contributing $29 million to the settlement, and DuPont and Corteva contributing $27 million each. The company has recorded a liability for its share of the settlement, with a charge to (loss) income from discontinued operations after income taxes, during the year ended December 31, 2020.

EID is a party to other PFOA lawsuits that do not involve claims for personal injury. Defense costs and any future liabilities that may arise out of these lawsuits are subject to the MOU and the cost sharing arrangement disclosed above. Under the MOU, fraudulent conveyance claims associated with these matters are not qualified expenses, unless Corteva, Inc. and EID would prevail on the merits of these claims.

New York. EID is a defendant in about 50 lawsuits, including a putative class action, brought by persons who live in and around Hoosick Falls, New York. These lawsuits assert claims for medical monitoring and property damage based on alleged PFOA releases from manufacturing facilities owned and operated by co-defendants in Hoosick Falls and allege that EID and 3M supplied some of the materials used at these facilities. EID is also one of more than ten defendants in a lawsuit brought by the Town of East Hampton, New York alleging PFOA and PFOS contamination of the town’s well water. Additionally, EID, along with 3M, Chemours and Dyneon, have been named defendants in complaints filed by eight water districts in Nassau County, New York alleging that the drinking water they provide to customers is contaminated with PFAS and seeking reimbursement for clean-up costs. The water district complaints also include allegations of fraudulent transfer.

New Jersey. At December 31, 2020, two lawsuits were pending, one brought by a local water utility and the second a putative class action, against EID alleging that PFOA from EID’s former Chambers Works facility contaminated drinking water sources. The putative class action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff.

In late March of 2019, the New Jersey State Attorney General filed four lawsuits against EID, Chemours, 3M and others alleging that operations at and discharges from former EID sites in New Jersey (Chambers Works, Pompton Lakes, Parlin and Repauno) damaged the State’s natural resources. Two of these lawsuits (those involving the Chambers Works and Parlin sites) allege contamination from PFAS. The Ridgewood Water District in New Jersey filed suit in the first quarter 2019 against EID, 3M, Chemours, and Dyneon alleging losses related to the investigation, remediation and monitoring of polyfluorinated surfactants, including PFOA, in water supplies. DuPont and Corteva were subsequently added as defendants to these lawsuits.

Alabama / Others. EID is one of more than thirty defendants in a lawsuit by the Alabama water utility alleging contamination from PFCs, including PFOA, used by co-defendant carpet manufacturers to make their products more stain and grease resistant. In addition, the states of Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Vermont recently filed lawsuits against EID, Chemours, 3M and others, claiming, among other things, PFC (including PFOA) contamination of groundwater and drinking water. The complaints seek reimbursement for past and future

Ohio. EID is a defendant in three lawsuits: an action by the State of Ohio based on alleged damage to natural resources, a putative nationwide class action brought on behalf of anyone who has detectable levels of PFAS in their blood serum, and an action by the City of Dayton claiming losses related to the investigation, remediation and monitoring of PFAS in water supplies.

Aqueous Firefighting Foams. Approximately 900 cases have been filed against 3M and other defendants, including EID and Chemours, and more recently also including Corteva and DuPont, alleging PFOS or PFOA contamination of soil and groundwater from the use of aqueous firefighting foams. Most of those cases claim some form of property damage and seek to recover the costs of responding to this contamination and damages for the loss of use and enjoyment of property and diminution in value. Most of these cases have been transferred to a multidistrict litigation proceeding in federal district court in South Carolina. Approximately 725 of these cases were filed on behalf of firefighters who allege personal injuries (primarily kidney and testicular cancer) as a result of aqueous firefighting foams. Most of these recent cases assert claims that the EID and Chemours separation constituted a fraudulent conveyance. A schedule of initial trials is expected to be established in 2021.

EID did not make firefighting foams, PFOS, or PFOS products. While EID made surfactants and intermediaries that some manufacturers used in making foams, which may have contained PFOA as an unintended byproduct or an impurity, EID’s products were not formulated with PFOA, nor was PFOA an ingredient of these products. EID has never made or sold PFOA as a commercial product.

At December 31, 2020, several actions are pending in federal court against Chemours and EID relating to PFC discharges from the Fayetteville Works facility. One of these is a consolidated putative class action that asserts claims for medical monitoring and property damage on behalf of putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or who draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River. Another action is a consolidated action brought by various North Carolina water authorities, including the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and Brunswick County, that seek actual and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. In another action over approximately 100 property owners near the Fayetteville Works facility filed a complaint against Chemours and EID in May 2020. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for their claims of private nuisance, trespass, and negligence allegedly caused by release of PFAS.

In addition to the federal court actions, there is an action on behalf of about 100 plaintiffs who own wells and property near the Fayatteville Works facility. The plaintiffs seek damages for nuisance allegedly caused by releases of certain PFCs from the site. The plaintiffs’ claims for medical monitoring, punitive damages, public nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, failure to warn, and negligent manufacture were dismissed.

Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated based on current law and existing technologies. At December 31, 2020, the company had accrued obligations of $329 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $52 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. These obligations are included in accrued and other current liabilities and other noncurrent obligations in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. This is management’s best estimate of the costs for remediation and restoration with respect to environmental matters for which the company has accrued liabilities, although it is reasonably possible that the ultimate cost with respect to these particular matters could range up to $620 million above the amount accrued at December 31, 2020. Consequently, it is reasonably possible that environmental remediation and restoration costs in excess of amounts accrued could have a material impact on the company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Inherent uncertainties exist in these estimates primarily due to unknown conditions, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies for handling site remediation and restoration. At December 31, 2019, the company had accrued obligations of $336 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $51 million for the remediation of Superfund sites.


	As of December 31, 2020
(In millions)	Indemnification Asset		Accrual balance3,4		Potential exposure above amount accrued3
Environmental Remediation Stray Liabilities
Chemours related obligations - subject to indemnity1,2	$	153	$	154	$	282
Other discontinued or divested businesses obligations1	—		74		222

Environmental remediation liabilities primarily related to DuPont - subject to indemnity from DuPont2	37		36		61

Environmental remediation liabilities not subject to indemnity	—		65		55
Total	$	190	$	329	$	620