XML 85 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT  v2.3.0.11
Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2010
Commitments and Contingencies  
Commitments and Contingencies

NOTE 14.  Commitments and Contingencies

 

Capital and Operating Leases:

 

Rental expense under operating leases was $262 million in 2010, $244 million in 2009 and $247 million in 2008. It is 3M’s practice to secure renewal rights for leases, thereby giving 3M the right, but not the obligation, to maintain a presence in a leased facility. 3M has two primary capital leases. First, 3M has a capital lease, which became effective in April 2003, that involves a building in the United Kingdom (with a lease term of 22 years). During the second quarter of 2003, 3M recorded a capital lease asset and obligation of approximately 33.5 million United Kingdom pounds (approximately $52 million at December 31, 2010 exchange rates). Second, during the fourth quarter of 2009, 3M recorded a capital lease asset and obligation of approximately $50 million related to an IT investment with an amortization period of seven years.

 

Minimum lease payments under capital and operating leases with non-cancelable terms in excess of one year as of December 31, 2010, were as follows:

 

(Millions)

 

Capital
Leases

 

Operating
Leases

 

2011

 

$

17

 

$

139

 

2012

 

18

 

104

 

2013

 

18

 

69

 

2014

 

17

 

41

 

2015

 

4

 

25

 

After 2015

 

37

 

64

 

Total

 

$

111

 

$

442

 

Less: Amounts representing interest

 

5

 

 

 

Present value of future minimum lease payments

 

106

 

 

 

Less: Current obligations under capital leases

 

12

 

 

 

Long-term obligations under capital leases

 

$

94

 

 

 

 

Warranties/Guarantees:

 

3M’s accrued product warranty liabilities, recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as part of current and long-term liabilities, are estimated at approximately $27 million as of December 31, 2010 and approximately $25 million as of December 31, 2009. 3M does not consider this amount to be material. The fair value of 3M guarantees of loans with third parties and other guarantee arrangements are not material.

 

Related Party Activity:

 

3M does not have any material related party activity that is not in the ordinary course of business.

 

Legal Proceedings:

 

The Company and some of its subsidiaries are involved in numerous claims and lawsuits, principally in the United States, and regulatory proceedings worldwide. These include various products liability (involving products that the Company now or formerly manufactured and sold), intellectual property, and commercial claims and lawsuits, including those brought under the antitrust laws, and environmental proceedings. Unless otherwise stated, the Company is vigorously defending all such litigation.

 

Process for Disclosure and Recording of Liabilities and Insurance Receivables Related to Legal Proceedings

 

Many lawsuits and claims involve highly complex issues relating to causation, scientific evidence, and whether there are actual damages and are otherwise subject to substantial uncertainties. Assessments of lawsuits and claims can involve a series of complex judgments about future events and can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. The Company complies with the requirements of ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, and related guidance, and records liabilities for legal proceedings in those instances where it can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss and where liability is probable. Where the reasonable estimate of the probable loss is a range, the Company records the most likely estimate of the loss, or the low end of the range if there is no one best estimate. The Company either discloses the amount of a possible loss or range of loss in excess of established reserves if estimable, or states that such an estimate cannot be made. The Company discloses significant legal proceedings even where liability is not probable or the amount of the liability is not estimable, or both, if the Company believes there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred.

 

The Company estimates insurance receivables based on an analysis of its numerous policies, including their exclusions, pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with similar claims, and assessment of the nature of the claim, and records an amount it has concluded is likely to be recovered. For those insured matters where the Company has taken a reserve, the Company also records receivables for the amount of insurance that it expects to recover under the Company’s insurance program. For those insured matters where the Company has not taken a reserve because the liability is not probable or the amount of the liability is not estimable, or both, but where the Company has incurred an expense in defending itself, the Company records receivables for the amount of insurance that it expects to recover for the expense incurred.

 

Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings or developments could occur, there can be no certainty that the Company may not ultimately incur charges in excess of presently recorded liabilities. A future adverse ruling, settlement, or unfavorable development could result in future charges that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in the period in which they are recorded. The Company currently believes that such future charges, if any, would not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position of the Company, taking into account its significant available insurance coverage. Based on experience and developments, the Company periodically reexamines its estimates of probable liabilities and associated expenses and receivables, and whether it is able to estimate a liability previously determined to be not estimable and/or not probable. Where appropriate, the Company makes additions to or adjustments of its estimated liabilities. As a result, the current estimates of the potential impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the legal proceedings and claims pending against the Company could change in the future.

 

The following table shows the major categories of significant legal matters — respirator mask/asbestos litigation (including Aearo), environmental remediation and other environmental liabilities — for which the Company has been able to estimate its probable liability and for which the Company has taken reserves and the related insurance receivables:

 

At December 31
(Millions)

 

2010

 

2009

 

2008

 

Respirator mask/asbestos liabilities

 

126

 

138

 

140

 

Respirator mask/asbestos insurance receivables

 

122

 

143

 

193

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental remediation liabilities

 

24

 

31

 

31

 

Environmental remediation insurance receivables

 

15

 

15

 

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other environmental liabilities

 

90

 

117

 

137

 

 

The following sections first describe the significant legal proceedings in which the Company is involved, and then describe the liabilities and associated insurance receivables the Company has accrued relating to its significant legal proceedings.

 

Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation

 

As of December 31, 2010, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in 854 lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,148 individual claimants, down from the approximately 2,510 individual claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2009.

 

The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company’s mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of claimants generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.

 

The Company’s current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than its historical experience. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, while remaining relatively constant and consistent with historical experience, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial, including seven of the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The ninth case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the Court at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, based on the Court’s legal finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict. This case is being appealed by the plaintiffs and briefing is underway.

 

The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company’s respiratory protection products. Nonetheless the Company’s litigation experience indicates that claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by the unimpaired.

 

Plaintiffs have asserted specific dollar claims for damages in approximately 31% of the 854 lawsuits that were pending against the Company at the end of 2010 in all jurisdictions. A majority of states restrict or prohibit specifying damages in tort cases such as these, and most of the remaining jurisdictions do not require such specification. In those cases in which plaintiffs choose to assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, brought in states that permit such pleading, the amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an indicator of the Company’s potential liability. This is because (a) the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff’s injury, if any; (b) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants with the typical complaint asserting claims against as few as a dozen different defendants to upwards of 275 different defendants, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants, and a defendant’s share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state, and by the amount of fault a jury allocates to each defendant if a case is ultimately tried before a jury; (c) many cases are filed against the Company even though the plaintiffs did not use any of the Company’s products and, ultimately, are withdrawn or dismissed without any payment; and (d) many cases are brought on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injury, and, ultimately, are resolved without any payment or a payment that is a small fraction of the damages initially claimed. Of the 261 pending cases in which purported damage amounts are specified in the complaints, 158 cases involve claims of $100,000 or less, (five (5) of which also allege punitive damages of $10 million); 98 cases involve claims between $100,000 and $3 million; three (3) cases involve claims of $10 million (two (2) of which also allege punitive damages of $10 million); one (1) case involves claims of $10 million to $50 million (which also alleges punitive damages of $15 million); and one (1) case involves claims of $50 million (which also alleges punitive damages of $50 million). Some complaints allege that the compensatory and punitive damages are at least the amounts specified. As previously stated, the Company’s experience and the other reasons cited indicate that the damage amounts specified in complaints are not a meaningful factor in any assessment of the Company’s potential liability.

 

As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia and amended it in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker’s compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. While the case has been inactive since the fourth quarter of 2007, the State of West Virginia has recently asked the Court to set a case management conference in the spring of 2011. No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this time. In addition, Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the minimal activity in this case and the fact that the complaint asserts claims against two other manufacturers where a defendant’s share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability and by the amount of fault a jury allocates to each defendant if a case is ultimately tried before a jury.

 

Respirator Mask/Asbestos Liabilities and Insurance Receivables: The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, including the cost to resolve the claim and defense costs, by examining: (i) the Company’s experience in resolving claims, (ii) apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g., whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g., the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company’s mask or respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend against current and future claims.

 

Developments may occur that could affect the Company’s estimate of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii) the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv) changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of other co-defendants and insurers.

 

As a result of the costs of aggressively defending itself and the greater cost of resolving claims of persons with malignant conditions, the Company increased its reserves in 2010 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $19 million, of which $5 million and $14 million were recorded in the third and fourth quarters of 2010, respectively. As of December 31, 2010, the Company had reserves for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of $94 million (excluding Aearo reserves). The Company can not estimate the amount or range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the reserve the Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted, particularly with respect to the Company’s respiratory products that themselves did not contain any harmful materials (which makes the various published studies that purport to project future asbestos claims substantially removed from the Company’s principal experience and which themselves vary widely), (ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a defendant’s share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple factors described above that the Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments described above that may occur that could affect the Company’s estimate of liabilities.

 

As of December 31, 2010, the Company’s receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was $122 million. The Company increased its receivables for insurance recoveries by $4 million in 2010 related to this litigation of which $1 million and $3 million were recorded in the third and fourth quarters of 2010, respectively. As a result of settlements reached with its insurers, the Company was paid approximately $25 million in 2010 in connection with the respirator mask/asbestos litigation.

 

Various factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of this receivable, including (i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii) the outcome of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings with respect to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance coverage. The difference between the accrued liability and insurance receivable represents in part the time delay between payment of claims on the one hand and receipt of insurance reimbursements on the other hand. Because of the lag time between settlement and payment of a claim, no meaningful conclusions may be drawn from quarterly or annual changes in the amount of receivables for expected insurance recoveries or changes in the number of claimants.

 

As previously reported, on January 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers (Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. — both part of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims. These insurers represent approximately $14 million of the $122 million insurance recovery receivable referenced in the above table. The action, pending in the District Court in Ramsey County, Minnesota, seeks declaratory judgment regarding coverage provided by the policies and the allocation of covered costs among the policies issued by the various insurers. The action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the Company’s insurers. This action is similar in nature to an action filed in 1994 with respect to breast implant coverage, which ultimately resulted in the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling of 2003 that was largely in the Company’s favor. The plaintiff insurers have served an amended complaint that names some additional insurers and deletes others. A significant number of the insurer defendants named in the amended complaint have been dismissed because of settlements they have reached with 3M regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit. Three additional insurers have recently been or are being added as parties to the case. The case remains in its early stages with a trial scheduled to begin in June, 2012.

 

Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation — Aearo Technologies

 

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies (“Aearo”). Aearo manufactures and sells various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.

 

As of December 31, 2010, Aearo and/or other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo’s respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation (“Cabot”)) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace.

 

As of December 31, 2010, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, has recorded $32 million as the best estimate of the probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their insurers (the “Payor Group”). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the “AO Safety” brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo’s share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot an annual fee of $400,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, asbestos and silica-related product liability claims for respirators manufactured prior to July 11, 1995.

 

Because the date of manufacture for a particular respirator allegedly used in the past is often difficult to determine, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators while exposed to asbestos or silica or products containing asbestos or silica prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo’s potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators while exposed to asbestos, silica or other occupational dusts on or after January 1, 1997.

 

To date, Aearo has elected to pay the annual fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters.

 

Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo’s liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims, (iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants, (viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group including exhaustion of available coverage limits, (ix) the outcome of pending insurance coverage litigation among certain other members of the Payor Group and their respective insurers, and/or (x) a determination that the interpretation of the contractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo’s share of liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the developments described above were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than the reserved amount.

 

Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group, and the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo’s liabilities, the Company can not estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo’s liability may exceed the reserve the Company has established.

 

Environmental Matters and Litigation

 

The Company’s operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations including those pertaining to air emissions, wastewater discharges, toxic substances, and the handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes enforceable by national, state, and local authorities around the world, and private parties in the United States and abroad. These laws and regulations provide, under certain circumstances, a basis for the remediation of contamination, for restoration of or compensation for damages to natural resources, and for personal injury and property damage claims. The Company has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs and capital expenditures in complying with these laws and regulations, defending personal injury and property damage claims, and modifying its business operations in light of its environmental responsibilities. In its effort to satisfy its environmental responsibilities and comply with environmental laws and regulations, the Company has established, and periodically updates, policies relating to environmental standards of performance for its operations worldwide.

 

Under certain environmental laws, including the United States Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 and similar state laws, the Company may be jointly and severally liable, typically with other companies, for the costs of remediation of environmental contamination at current or former facilities and at off-site locations. The Company has identified numerous locations, most of which are in the United States, at which it may have some liability. Please refer to the paragraph entitled “Environmental Liabilities and Insurance Receivables” that follows for information on the amount of the reserve.

 

Environmental Matters

 

As previously reported, the Company has been voluntarily cooperating with ongoing reviews by local, state, national (primarily the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)), and international agencies of possible environmental and health effects of various perfluorinated compounds (“PFCs”), including perfluorooctanyl compounds (perflurooctanoic acid or “PFOA” and perfluorooctane sulfonate or “PFOS”). As a result of its phase-out decision in May 2000, the Company no longer manufactures perfluorooctanyl compounds, and through changes to its manufacturing process at the end of 2008, no longer uses such compounds in its manufacturing process.

 

Regulatory activities concerning PFOA and/or PFOS continue in Europe and elsewhere, and before certain international bodies. These activities include gathering of exposure and use information, risk assessment, and consideration of regulatory approaches.

 

In late 2008 and early 2009, the EPA implemented testing of private wells and soils at certain agricultural sites in Alabama where wastewater treatment sludge was applied from a local wastewater treatment plant that received wastewater from numerous industrial sources. In this same timeframe, the EPA also issued provisional health advisory  values for drinking water for PFOA of 0.4 parts per billion (“ppb”) and PFOS of 0.2 ppb. The EPA currently believes that these levels are protective of drinking water supplies for a lifetime of consumption and is working with local industry, including 3M, to continue testing private wells in the area. EPA’s past testing of public drinking water supplies in Lawrence and Morgan Counties indicate that the levels of PFOA and PFOS are well below the provisional health advisories. 3M and other companies are completing the survey of properties near the sites where wastewater treatment sludge was applied to determine if any further private drinking water wells are present and will continue to monitor for another quarter those few wells that showed levels of PFOS or PFOA above detection levels but below the EPA’s provisional health advisory levels. In late 2010, four new wells were identified which will be tested according to the protocol agreed to with the EPA. If any private wells are found to exceed the EPA’s provisional health advisory levels, 3M and the other companies will provide alternative water supplies.

 

As previously reported, the Company entered into a voluntary remedial action agreement with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to address the presence of PFCs in the soil on the Company’s manufacturing facility in Decatur, Alabama. For approximately twenty years, the Company incorporated wastewater treatment plant sludge containing PFCs in fields surrounding its Decatur facility pursuant to a permit issued by ADEM. After a review of the available options to address the presence of PFCs in the soil, ADEM agreed that the preferred remediation option is to use a multilayer cap over the former sludge incorporation areas on the manufacturing site with groundwater migration controls and treatment. Implementation of that option continued throughout 2010 and is expected to be completed in 2014.

 

The Company continues to work with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) pursuant to the terms of the previously disclosed May 2007 Settlement Agreement and Consent Order to address the presence of perfluorinated compounds in the soil and groundwater at former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury) and at the Company’s manufacturing facility at Cottage Grove, Minnesota. Under this agreement, the Company’s principal obligations include (i) evaluating releases of perfluoronated compounds from these sites and proposing response actions; (ii) providing treatment or alternative drinking water upon identifying any exceeded level of a Health Based Value (“HBV”) or Health Risk Limit (“HRL”) (i.e., the amount of a chemical in drinking water determined by the Minnesota Department of Health to be safe for people to drink for a lifetime) for any perfluoronated compounds as a result of contamination from these sites; (iii) remediating any source of other PFCs at these sites that is not controlled by actions to remediate PFOA and PFOS; and (iv) sharing information with the MPCA about perfluoronated compounds. During 2008, the MPCA issued formal decisions adopting remedial options for the former disposal sites in Washington County Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury). In August 2009, the MPCA issued a formal decision adopting remedial options for the Company’s Cottage Grove manufacturing facility. During the spring and summer of 2010, 3M began implementing the remedial options at the Cottage Grove and Woodbury sites. 3M commenced the remedial option at the Oakdale site in late 2010. At each location the remedial options were among those recommended by the Company. Remediation work will continue at all three sites in 2011.

 

The Company cannot predict what additional regulatory actions arising from the foregoing proceedings and activities, if any, may be taken regarding such compounds or the consequences of any such actions.

 

In March 2010, the Wisconsin Department of Justice notified the Company that it is seeking $270,000 in penalties for alleged past violations of the Wisconsin Air Management regulations at the Company’s manufacturing facility in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. In July 2010, the Company and the State of Wisconsin reached a settlement of the matter by the Company paying a $150,000 penalty and agreeing to implement two environmental projects at its manufacturing facility.

 

Environmental Litigation

 

As previously reported, a former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry, seeking unstated damages alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemistry at or near the Company’s Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the named plaintiff’s personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state’s Workers Compensation Act. The plaintiffs’ counsel filed an amended complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant. Also, in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their property from emissions of perfluorooctanyl compounds from the Company’s Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds) granted the Company’s motion to abate the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class certification issues in the first action described above filed in the same court in 2002. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted.

 

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals. The named defendants in the case include 3M, Dyneon LLC, Daikin America, Inc., Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC and Biological Processors of America. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within the State of Alabama, Inc. who have had PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May, 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending the pending the resolution of the class certification issues in the first case filed there.

 

In July 2009, the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority in Florida filed a lawsuit against the Company, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Solutia, Inc., and Fire Ram International, Inc. in the Escambia County Circuit Court alleging contamination of public drinking water wells from PFOA and PFOS and seeking to recover costs related to investigation, treatment, remediation and monitoring of alleged PFOA and PFOS contamination of its wells. The Company, joined by the other defendants, removed the lawsuit to the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. On November 19, 2009 the District Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court, finding that plaintiff’s joinder of the only Florida defendant, Fire Ram International, Inc., was fraudulent. The District Court subsequently denied as not timely the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On April 29, 2010, the Company and the other defendants argued motions for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the case on various legal grounds. On September 29, 2010, the Court granted these motions and dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff opted not to appeal.

 

In June 2009, the Company, along with more than 250 other companies, was served with a third-party complaint seeking contribution towards the cost of cleaning up a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River in New Jersey. After commencing an enforcement action in 1990, the State of New Jersey filed suit against Maxus Energy, Tierra Solutions, Occidental Chemical and two other companies seeking cleanup and removal costs and other damages associated with the presence of dioxin and other hazardous substances in the sediment of the Passaic. The third-party complaint seeks to spread those costs among the third-party defendants, including the Company. Based on the cleanup remedy currently proposed by the EPA, the total costs at issue could easily exceed $1 billion. The Company’s recent involvement in the case appears to relate to its past disposal of industrial waste at two commercial waste disposal facilities in New Jersey. Whether, and to what extent, the Company may be required to contribute to the costs at issue in the case remains to be determined. The Company does not yet have a basis for estimating its potential exposure in this case, although the Company currently believes its allocable share, if any, is likely to be a fraction of one percent of the total costs.

 

On December 30, 2010, the State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General Lori Swanson, acting in its capacity as trustee of the natural resources of the State of Minnesota, filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court against 3M to recover damages (including unspecified assessment costs and reasonable attorney’s fees) for alleged injury to, destruction of, and loss of use of certain of the State’s natural resources under several Minnesota Statutes (including the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA) and the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Act (MWPCA)), as well as statutory nuisance and under common law based on claims of trespass, nuisance, and negligence with respect to the presence of PFC’s in the groundwater, surface water, fish or other aquatic life and sediments. The State also seeks declarations under MERLA that 3M is responsible for all damages the State may suffer in the future for injuries to natural resources from releases of PFCs into the environment, and under MWPCA that 3M is responsible for compensation for future loss or destruction of fish, aquatic life and other damages. On January 14, 2011, the City of Lake Elmo intervened in the State of Minnesota lawsuit and seeks damages in excess of $50,000 and other legal and equitable relief, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, for alleged contamination of city property, wells, groundwater and water contained in the wells with PFCs under several theories, including common law and statutory nuisance, strict liability, trespass, negligence, and conversion.

 

The Company has not recorded any liabilities for the Company’s environmental litigation described in this section because the Company believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this time. Because of the limited activity in these cases, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss, with the exception of the Passaic River litigation, where the Company indicated that its potential exposure, if any, is likely to be a fraction of one percent of the total costs.

 

Environmental Liabilities and Insurance Receivables

 

As of December 31, 2010, the Company had recorded liabilities of $24 million for estimated “environmental remediation” costs based upon an evaluation of currently available facts with respect to each individual site and also recorded related insurance receivables of $15 million. The Company records liabilities for remediation costs on an undiscounted basis when they are probable and reasonably estimable, generally no later than the completion of  feasibility studies or the Company’s commitment to a plan of action. Liabilities for estimated costs of environmental remediation, depending on the site, are based primarily upon internal or third-party environmental studies, and estimates as to the number, participation level and financial viability of any other potentially responsible parties, the extent of the contamination and the nature of required remedial actions. The Company adjusts recorded liabilities as further information develops or circumstances change. The Company expects that it will pay the amounts recorded over the periods of remediation for the applicable sites, currently ranging up to 20 years.

 

As of December 31, 2010, the Company had recorded liabilities of $90 million for “other environmental liabilities” based upon an evaluation of currently available facts to implement the Settlement Agreement and Consent Order with the MPCA, the remedial action agreement with ADEM, and to address trace amounts of perfluorinated compounds in drinking water sources in the City of Oakdale and Lake Elmo, Minnesota, as well as presence in the soil and groundwater at the Company’s manufacturing facilities in Decatur, Alabama, and Cottage Grove, Minnesota, and at two former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury). The Company expects that most of the spending will occur over the next five years.

 

It is difficult to estimate the cost of environmental compliance and remediation given the uncertainties regarding the interpretation and enforcement of applicable environmental laws and regulations, the extent of environmental contamination and the existence of alternative cleanup methods. Developments may occur that could affect the Company’s current assessment, including, but not limited to: (i) changes in the information available regarding the environmental impact of the Company’s operations and products; (ii) changes in environmental regulations, changes in permissible levels of specific compounds in drinking water sources, or changes in enforcement theories and policies, including efforts to recover natural resource damages; (iii) new and evolving analytical and remediation techniques; (iv) success in allocating liability to other potentially responsible parties; and (v) the financial viability of other potentially responsible parties and third-party indemnitors. For sites included in both “environmental remediation liabilities” and “other environmental liabilities,” at which remediation activity is largely complete and remaining activity relates primarily to operation and maintenance of the remedy, including required post-remediation monitoring, the Company believes the exposure to loss in excess of the amount accrued would not be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition. However, for locations at which remediation activity is largely on-going, the Company cannot estimate a possible loss or range of loss in excess of the associated established reserves for the reasons described above.

 

Employment Litigation

 

Whitaker Lawsuit:

 

As previously reported, in December, 2004, one current and one former employee of the Company filed a purported class action in the District Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota, seeking to represent a class of all current and certain former salaried employees employed by the Company in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were age 46 or older at any time during the applicable period to be determined by the Court (the “Whitaker” lawsuit). The complaint alleges the plaintiffs suffered various forms of employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and attorneys’ fees. In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four additional named plaintiffs. This motion was unopposed by the Company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case, although one plaintiff’s claim was dismissed following an individual settlement. A class certification hearing was held in December 2007. On April 11, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the case as a class action and defined the class as all persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in a salaried exempt position below a certain salary grade at any time on or after May 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document on their last day of employment purporting to release claims arising out of their employment with 3M. On April 28, 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s class certification decision. The Court of Appeals found that the District Court had not required plaintiffs to meet the proper legal standards for certification of a class under Minnesota law and incorrectly had deferred resolving certain factual disputes that were relevant to the class certification requirements. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings in line with the evidentiary standards defined in its opinion. The trial court took expert testimony on the class certification issue on May 5-6, 2010 and held a hearing on the issue on August 25, 2010. A new decision on whether the case should proceed as a class action is pending.

 

Garcia Lawsuit

 

The Company was served on May 7, 2009 with a purported class action/collective action age discrimination lawsuit, which was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division (the “Garcia lawsuit”). The case has since been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The case is still in the initial phase of discovery.

 

In this case, five former and one current employee of the Company are seeking to represent all current and former salaried employees employed by the Company in the United States during the liability period, which plaintiffs define as 2001 to the present. In addition to the six named plaintiffs, there are presently 86 other current or former employees who have signed “opt-in” forms, seeking to join the action. This number has changed since the case was filed and is likely to change again as the case progresses. The Garcia lawsuit expressly excludes those persons encompassed within the proposed class in the Whitaker lawsuit. The same firm, joined by additional California counsel and local Minnesota counsel for the Garcia lawsuit, represents the plaintiffs in both cases.

 

The allegations of the complaint in the Garcia lawsuit are similar to those in the Whitaker lawsuit. Plaintiffs claim that they and other similarly situated employees suffered various forms of employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In regard to these claims, plaintiffs seek to represent “all persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in the United States in a salaried position below the level of director, or salary grade 18, during the liability period.”  Because federal law protects persons age 40 and older from age discrimination, with respect to their claim of disparate impact only, plaintiffs also propose an alternative definition of similarly situated persons that would begin at age 40. On behalf of this group, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory damages including back and front pay, benefits, liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees.

 

Certain of the plaintiffs’ and putative class members’ employment terminated under circumstances in which they were eligible for group severance plan benefits and in connection with those plans they signed waivers of claims, including age discrimination claims. Plaintiffs claim the waivers of age discrimination claims were invalid in various respects. This subset of release-signing plaintiffs seeks a declaration that the waivers of age discrimination claims are invalid, other injunctive, but non-monetary, remedies, and attorneys’ fees.

 

EEOC Age-Discrimination Charges

 

Six former employees and one current employee, all but one of whom are plaintiffs in the Garcia lawsuit, have also filed age discrimination charges against the Company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and various pertinent state agencies, alleging age discrimination similar to the Whitaker and Garcia lawsuits and claiming that a class of similarly situated persons exists. Of these, three former employees filed charges in 2005 in Minnesota, Texas, and California. These filings include allegations that the release of claims signed by certain former employees in the purported class defined in the charges is invalid for various reasons and assert age discrimination claims on behalf of certain current and former salaried employees in states other than Minnesota and New Jersey. In 2006, a current employee filed an age discrimination charge against the Company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the pertinent state agency in Missouri, asserting claims on behalf of a class of all current and certain former salaried employees who worked in Missouri and other states other than Minnesota and New Jersey. In 2007, a former employee filed an age discrimination charge against the Company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the pertinent state agency in California, asserting claims on behalf of a class of all current and certain former salaried employees who worked in California. In January 2009, two former employees filed age discrimination charges against the Company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the pertinent state agency in Minnesota. The filings include allegations that the release of claims signed by certain former employees in the purported class defined in the charges is invalid for various reasons and assert age discrimination claims on behalf of certain current and former salaried employees in states other than Minnesota. The same law firm represents the plaintiffs in the Whitaker lawsuit as well as the claimants in each of these EEOC proceedings.

 

In January 2011, 3M reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs’ counsel to resolve the Whitaker and Garcia lawsuits. The tentative agreement is subject to required court procedures and preparation of the necessary documents and will be subject to court review and approval. 3M is currently in discussions with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to resolve related charges described above. If finalized and approved by the court, administration of the settlement agreements will take several months to complete. The amount of the proposed settlements is not material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

 

Compliance Matters

 

On November 12, 2009, the Company contacted the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to voluntarily disclose that the Company was conducting an internal investigation as a result of reports it received about its subsidiary in Turkey, alleging bid rigging and bribery and other inappropriate conduct in connection with the supply of certain reflective and other materials and related services to Turkish government entities. The Company also contacted certain affected government agencies in Turkey. The Company continues to cooperate with the DOJ and SEC in the Company’s ongoing investigation of this matter. The Company retained outside counsel to conduct an assessment of its policies, practices, and controls and to evaluate its overall compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including an ongoing review of our practices in certain other countries. The Company cannot predict at this time the outcome of its investigation or what regulatory actions may be taken or what other consequences may result.

 

Other Matters

 

Commercial Litigation

 

In September 2010, various parties, on behalf of a purported class of shareholders of Cogent, Inc. (“Cogent”), commenced three lawsuits against the Company, Cogent, and its directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Plaintiffs allege that 3M, in connection with its tender offer for Cogent shares, aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties by Cogent directors and seek an unspecified amount of damages. The three cases were consolidated, expedited discovery was conducted, and Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the transaction was denied on October 1, 2010. On November 15, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added directors of Cogent, Inc. appointed by 3M, as named defendants, and asserted additional claims of breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction and a subsequent offering period. The transaction closed on December 1, 2010. The Company is defending this matter vigorously.

 

In September 2010, various parties, again on behalf of a purported class of Cogent shareholders, commenced six lawsuits against the Company, Cogent and its directors in the Los Angeles Superior Court for the State of California that contained similar claims that 3M had aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties by Cogent directors. The parties have reached a resolution of these matters. A separate lawsuit was commenced in September 2010 by an individual, again on behalf of a purported class of Cogent shareholders, against Cogent and its directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California that raised similar claims; plaintiff later filed an amended complaint that also named the Company. The plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit.

 

Separately, several purported holders of Cogent shares, representing a total of approximately 5.8 million shares, have asserted appraisal rights under Delaware law. The Company is defending this matter vigorously.

 

In October 2010, Avery Dennison filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that 3M monopolized or attempted to monopolize the markets for Type XI retroreflective sheeting and for broad high performance sheeting, both of which are used for highway signage, in violation of the Sherman Act, as well as other claims.  Avery alleges that 3M manipulated the standards setting process of ASTM International, a private standards setting organization responsible for creating standards for retroreflective sheeting, entered into illegal and anticompetitive contracts, and engaged in other anticompetitive acts including false advertising and disparagement. Avery's antitrust lawsuit follows a lawsuit that 3M filed earlier in 2010 against Avery in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota claiming that Avery's OmniCube product infringes certain 3M patent rights. 3M’s motion to preliminarily enjoin the sales of Avery’s OmniCube retroreflective sheeting was denied in December 2010. 3M also filed suit in 2010 seeking a declaratory judgment that 3M’s Diamond Grade DG3 full cube retroreflective sheeting does not infringe two Avery patents. In February 2011, the United States District Judge for the Central District of California granted the Company’s motion to transfer Avery’s antitrust lawsuit to the District of Minnesota.

 

In December 2010, Meda AB filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging breach certain representations and warranties contained in the October 2006 acquisition agreement pursuant to which Meda AB acquired the Company’s European pharmaceutical business. The lawsuit seeks to recover an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $200 million, in compensatory damages alleging that 3M failed to disclose, during the due diligence period, certain pricing arrangements between 3M’s French subsidiary and the French government agency that determines the eligible levels of reimbursement for prescription pharmaceuticals. As previously stated, the damage amounts specified in complaints are not a meaningful factor in any assessment of the Company’s potential liability. The Company believes it has a number of legal and factual defenses to this claim and will vigorously defend it.

 

No liability has been recorded for the Company’s commercial litigation described in this section because the Company believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this time and the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the limited activity in these cases.

 

French Competition Authority Investigation

 

On December 4, 2008, the Company’s subsidiary in France (“3M France”) received a Statement of Objections from the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) alleging an abuse of a dominant position regarding the supply of retro-reflective films for vertical signing applications in France and participation in a concerted practice with the major French manufacturers of vertical signs. On December 22, 2010, the FCA issued a decision finding that there was insufficient evidence that 3M France participated in any such concerted practice. The FCA also found that 3M France from 2003 to 2005 abused a dominant position on the French market for retro-reflective films intended for the manufacturing of vertical signs through discriminatory rebates and characteristics of its accreditation system and fined 3M France 1.97 million Euros. While the Company disagrees with the FCA’s decision on abuse of a dominant position, the Company does not plan to appeal. The Company does not expect any additional litigation to arise from the FCA decision.