Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

NOTE 11.  Commitments and Contingencies

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. Additional information can be found in Note 14 “Commitments and Contingencies” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as updated by the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 26, 2011, including information about the Company’s process for disclosure and recording of liabilities and insurance receivables related to legal proceedings.

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:

Liability and Receivable Balances	Sept. 30,		Dec. 31,
(Millions)	2011		2010
Respirator mask/asbestos liabilities	$	105	$	126
Respirator mask/asbestos insurance receivables	119		122
Environmental remediation liabilities	$	29	$	24
Environmental remediation insurance receivables	15		15
Other environmental liabilities	$	80	$	90

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 September 30, 2011, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,190 individual claimants compared to approximately 2,148 individual claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2010.

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 complete and the parties are waiting for the court to set a hearing date for oral argument.

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.

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 its complaint 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 Court held a case management conference in March 2011, but no further activity has occurred in the case since that conference. No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this time. In addition, the 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.

Respirator Mask/Asbestos Liabilities and Insurance Receivables: The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, including the cost to resolve the claims 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 of September 30, 2011, the Company had reserves for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of $75 million (excluding Aearo reserves). The Company cannot 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, (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 September 30, 2011, the Company’s receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was $119 million.

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 $119 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. The case is currently in the discovery phase. Trial is scheduled to begin in the fall of 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 September 30, 2011, 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 September 30, 2011, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, has recorded $30 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 cannot 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 perfluorooctanoate or “PFOA” and perfluorooctane sulfonate or “PFOS” and other perfluorooctanyl compounds. As a result of its phase-out decision in May 2000, the Company no longer manufactures perfluorooctanyl compounds. The company ceased manufacturing and using the vast majority of these compounds within approximately two years of the phase out announcement, and ceased all manufacturing and the last significant use of this chemistry by 2008. Through its ongoing life cycle management and its raw material composition identification processes associated with the Company’s policies covering the use of all persistent and bio-accumulative materials, the Company has on rare occasion identified the presence of perfluorooctanyl precursor chemicals in materials purchased from suppliers that may ultimately degrade to PFOA. Upon such identification, the Company works with the suppliers to find substitutes for such chemicals.

Regulatory activities concerning PFOA and/or PFOS continue in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, and before certain international bodies. These activities include gathering of exposure and use information, risk assessment, and consideration of regulatory approaches. The EPA continues to develop Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOS and PFOA, which are expected to be released in 2012. Those advisory levels will supersede the current provisional advisory levels. In an effort to move toward developing standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA has proposed to have public water suppliers monitor for six PFCs to determine the extent of their occurrence.

In late 2008 and early 2009, the EPA undertook testing of private wells and soils at certain agricultural sites in Alabama where wastewater treatment sludge was applied from the municipal wastewater treatment plant in Decatur, Alabama that received wastewater from numerous sources, including sanitary wastewater from 3M. 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. Pursuant to an information request from EPA, a group of local industries, including 3M, and the Decatur utility have been working to identify and test private wells in the area, and to connect to municipal water any private wells used for drinking water that exceed the EPA’s provisional health advisory levels. EPA’s and the industry’s testing of public drinking water supplies in the area indicate that the levels of PFOA and PFOS in municipal water supplies are well below the provisional health advisories. 3M and other companies have completed a survey of properties near the sites where Decatur utility’s wastewater treatment sludge was applied to identify any additional private drinking water wells not already identified by the EPA, and have connected a small number of wells that exceeded the provisional health advisory levels for PFOS and PFOA to municipal water. 3M and the other companies have continued to monitor those few private wells that showed levels of PFOS or PFOA above detection levels but below the EPA’s provisional health advisory levels. EPA has recently notified 3M that the agency is satisfied that 3M has completed its obligations under the information request and that EPA is closing its request.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has completed a bio-monitoring study evaluating PFC blood levels in volunteers living near the sludge application fields. The Company expects ATSDR to release its report in 2012.

3M continues its third and final phase of work pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with the EPA regarding an environmental assessment program at the Company’s Decatur manufacturing site. That work includes groundwater sampling off-site from the Decatur facility (unrelated to the work described above involving the Decatur utility’s wastewater treatment sludge) as well as at three local landfills used by the facility.

The Company is continuing to make progress in its work, under the supervision of state regulators, to address its historic disposal of PFC-containing waste associated with manufacturing operations at the Cottage Grove, Minnesota and Decatur, Alabama plants.

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 at the Company’s manufacturing facility in Decatur, Alabama. For approximately twenty years, the Company incorporated its wastewater treatment plant sludge containing PFCs in fields at 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 subsequent groundwater migration controls and treatment. Implementation of that option will continue throughout the balance of 2011 and is expected to be completed in 2016.

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 perfluorinated compounds from these sites and proposing response actions; (ii) providing treatment or alternative drinking water upon identifying any level exceeding 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 perfluorinated 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 perfluorinated 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 throughout the balance of 2011 and into 2012.

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.

Environmental Litigation

As previously reported, a former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to perfluorochemicals 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 perfluorochemical 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 utility’s 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, its subsidiary 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 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 resolution of the class certification issues in the first case filed there.

In March 2011, several residents of Lawrence County, Alabama, filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Lawrence County seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and other relief for alleged personal injuries due to the exposure to PFCs. The named defendants in the case include the City of Decatur, Alabama, 3M, its subsidiary Dyneon LLC, Daikin America, Inc., Toray Industries, Inc. and two of its U.S. subsidiaries, Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC and Biological Processors of America, and certain individuals not associated with 3M. According to the complaint, Synagro acquired wastewater treatment sludge that allegedly contained PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals from the Decatur utility’s wastewater treatment plant, and made it into a fertilizer that it sold to farmers who applied it to their farmland in Morgan, Limestone and Lawrence counties, including land adjacent to the plaintiffs’ residence. Plaintiffs have dismissed the City of Decatur from the case.

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 the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA) and the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Act (MWPCA), as well as statutory nuisance and common law 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 filed a motion to intervene 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 court granted the City of Lake Elmo’s motion to intervene in this lawsuit.

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.

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 September 30, 2011, the Company had recorded liabilities of $29 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 September 30, 2011, the Company had recorded liabilities of $80 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

In January 2011, 3M reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs’ counsel to resolve the Whitaker and Garcia lawsuits.  The Whitaker settlement agreement was signed by all parties in March 2011. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on April 6, 2011, and provisionally certified a class for settlement purposes only. The final approval hearing is scheduled in December 2011. The Garcia settlement agreement has been signed by the parties. All plaintiffs subject to the Garcia settlement have signed and not timely revoked individual releases of claims against 3M, and the parties anticipate filing a stipulation of dismissal, with prejudice, in that matter following administration of the settlement, which will occur concurrently with administration of the Whitaker settlement. If finalized and approved by the court, administration of the settlement agreements will take several months to complete. In September 2011, 3M reached an agreement in the form of a proposed Consent Decree with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to resolve related charges as described below. The Consent Decree was filed concurrently with a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and has been approved by the court. The Consent Decree addressed the outstanding charges of age discrimination in addition to claims on behalf of a class of certain former employees as defined in the charges and subsequently in the complaint. 3M agreed, as part of the Consent Decree, to ensure that its policies and practices further the objectives of equal employment as set forth in the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and to make certain enhancements in its employee communications and development programs. The EEOC agreed, as part of the Consent Decree, not to take any further action against 3M in connection with the charges and as otherwise set forth in the decree. Administration of the EEOC settlement is in process and will take several months to complete. The amount of each of the proposed settlements is not material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition. The background of this litigation is set forth below.

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. On April 11, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the case as a class action. On April 28, 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s class certification decision, finding 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 and held a hearing on the class certification question and had the matter under advisement when the parties reached a tentative settlement which rendered the certification issues moot.

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 was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

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 approximately 130 other current or former employees who have signed “opt-in” forms, seeking to join the action. 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 named plaintiffs in the Garcia lawsuit, have also filed age discrimination charges against the Company with the EEOC 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 EEOC 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 states other than Minnesota and New Jersey. In 2007, a former employee filed an age discrimination charge against the Company with the EEOC 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 EEOC 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.

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 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 and acquired entities. As part of its ongoing review, the Company has also reported to the DOJ and SEC issues arising from transactions in other countries. The Company continues to cooperate with the DOJ and SEC and government agencies in Turkey in the Company’s ongoing investigation of this matter. 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 acquisition 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 acquisition and a subsequent offering period. The acquisition closed on December 1, 2010. 3M moved to dismiss all claims. In response to 3M’s motion, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in August 2011. 3M has moved to dismiss all claims of the second amended complaint.

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 has answered the appraisal petition and is defending this matter vigorously.

3M filed suit against Avery Dennison Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in June 2010, alleging that Avery’s OmniCube™ full cube retroreflective sheeting products, which are used for highway signage, infringe a number of 3M patents. 3M also sought a declaratory judgment from the District Court in Minnesota that 3M’s Diamond Grade™ DG3 full cube retroreflective sheeting does not infringe two Avery patents. 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 in violation of the Sherman Act, as well as other claims. Avery alleges that 3M manipulated the standards-setting process of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), a private organization responsible for creating standards for, among other things, retroreflective sheeting used for highway signage; entered into illegal and anticompetitive contracts; and engaged in other anticompetitive acts including false advertising and disparagement. 3M’s motion to transfer the antitrust case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota was granted in February 2011. In the patent case, 3M’s motion to preliminarily enjoin the sales of Avery’s OmniCube retroreflective sheeting was denied in December 2010. The District Court also granted Avery’s motion to dismiss 3M’s declaratory judgment suit in March 2011. 3M has appealed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment lawsuit. In the meantime, 3M’s patent infringement lawsuit against Avery and Avery’s antitrust suit against 3M are moving forward in the Minnesota Court.

In December 2010, Meda AB filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging breach of 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. 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.

In December 2008, the investors that sold Acolyte Biomedica, Ltd. to the Company’s subsidiary in the United Kingdom filed suit in London’s High Court seeking damages for breach of the acquisition agreement, including damages of 40 million pounds sterling for loss of potential earnout payments under the acquisition agreement. Notwithstanding significant investments and efforts by the Company to support the sales of BacLite™, a methicillin-resistant staphlococcus aureus (MRSA) screening device, the product was not a commercial success. A trial in London’s High Court began on June 13, 2011. The trial concluded July 18, 2011. Written post trial submissions were served July 27, 2011 and oral closing arguments occurred in early October 2011. The Company expects a decision in the next several months.

For commercial litigation matters described in this section for which a liability, if any, has been recorded, the Company believes the amount recorded, as well as the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the established reserve is not material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition. For those matters for which a liability has not been recorded, the Company believes that liability is not probable and estimable and the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss at this time.