Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

NOTE 14. 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 claims, lawsuits and proceedings include, but are not limited to, products liability (involving products that the Company now or formerly manufactured and sold), intellectual property, commercial, antitrust, federal False Claims Act, securities, and state and federal environmental laws. Unless otherwise stated, the Company is vigorously defending all such litigation and proceedings. From time to time, the Company also receives subpoenas or requests for information from various government agencies. The Company generally responds to such subpoenas and requests in a cooperative, thorough and timely manner. These responses sometimes require time and effort and can result in considerable costs being incurred by the Company. Such subpoenas and requests can also lead to the assertion of claims or the commencement of administrative, civil or criminal legal proceedings against the Company and others, as well as to settlements. The outcomes of legal proceedings and regulatory matters are often difficult to predict. Any determination that the Company’s operations or activities are not, or were not, in compliance with applicable laws or regulations could result in the imposition of fines, civil or criminal penalties, and equitable remedies, including disgorgement, suspension or debarment or injunctive relief. Additional information about the Company’s process for disclosure and recording of liabilities and insurance receivables related to legal proceedings can be found in Note 16 “Commitments and Contingencies” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019.

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 June 30, 2020, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 1,688 individual claimants, compared to approximately 1,727 individual claimants with actions pending on December 31, 2019.

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 the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company 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 it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. 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, other malignancies, and black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the Company has prevailed in fourteen of the fifteen cases tried to a jury (including the lawsuits in 2018 described below). In 2018, 3M received a jury verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in California state court in February and the other in Massachusetts state court in December – both involving allegations that 3M respirators were defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs against asbestos fibers. In April 2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M’s 8710 respirators failed to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust and awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages. In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company appealed. During March and April 2019, the Company agreed in principle to settle a substantial majority of the coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for $340 million, including the jury verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case mentioned above. That settlement was completed in 2019, and the appeal has been dismissed.

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 alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, 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 medically unimpaired claimants.

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. In October 2019, the court granted the State’s motion to sever its unfair trade practices claim. In January 2020, the manufacturers filed a petition with the West Virginia Supreme Court, challenging the trial court’s rulings; that petition is scheduled to be heard in September 2020. 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 lack of any meaningful discovery responses by the State of West Virginia, the otherwise minimal activity in this case, and the assertions of 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, if any, a jury may allocate to each defendant if the case were ultimately tried.

Respirator Mask/Asbestos Liabilities and Insurance Receivables

The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities. The Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., 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), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and (iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve claims, (collectively, the “Claims Data”). As part of its comprehensive legal review, the Company regularly provides the Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs. The third party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and resolve pending and future claims. The Company uses these estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability.

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 key assumptions underlying the Company’s accrual, including, the number of future claims, the nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of defending and resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and insurers.

As a result of its review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, of pending and expected lawsuits and of the cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, the Company increased its accruals in the first six months of 2020 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $8 million. In the first six months of 2020, the Company made payments for legal defense costs and settlements of $35 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation. During the first quarter of 2019, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $313 million in conjunction with an increase in the accrual as a result of the March and April 2019 settlements-in-principle of the coal mine dust lawsuits mentioned above and the Company’s assessment of other current and expected coal mine dust lawsuits (including the costs to resolve all current and expected coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia). As of June 30, 2020, the Company had an accrual for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of $581 million. This accrual represents the Company’s best estimate of probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims that may be filed against the Company approaching the year 2050. The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (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 June 30, 2020, the Company’s receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was $4 million. The Company continues to seek coverage under the policies of certain insolvent and other insurers. Once those claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims.

Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation — Aearo Technologies

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

As of June 30, 2020, 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, coal mine dust, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace.

As of June 30, 2020, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, had accruals of $21 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims. This accrual represents the Company’s best estimate of Aearo’s probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims that may be filed against Aearo approaching the year 2050. The accrual was reduced by $37 million during the second quarter of 2020 after paying Aearo’s share of certain settlements under the informal arrangement described below. The accrual reflects the Company’s assessment of pending and expected lawsuits, its review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, and the cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries. 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 respective 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 a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products 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 involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly 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 insurance coverage limits, and/or (ix) 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 amount accrued.

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 accrual 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 capital investment in pollution control equipment, 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 (CERCLA) 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 section entitled “Environmental Liabilities and Insurance Receivables” that follows for information on the amount of the accrual for such liabilities.

Environmental Matters

As previously reported, the Company has been voluntarily cooperating with ongoing reviews by local, state, federal (primarily the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)), and international agencies of possible environmental and health effects of various perfluorinated compounds, including perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), or other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (collectively PFAS). As a result of its phase-out decision in May 2000, the Company no longer manufactures certain PFAS compounds including PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and their pre-cursor 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 the end of 2008. The Company continues to manufacture a variety of shorter chain length PFAS compounds, including, but not limited to, pre-cursor compounds to perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS). These compounds are used as input materials to a variety of products, including engineered fluorinated fluids, fluoropolymers and fluorelastomers, as well as surfactants, additives, and coatings. 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 continues to review, control or eliminate the presence of certain PFAS in purchased materials or as byproducts in some of 3M’s current fluorochemical manufacturing processes, products, and waste streams.

Regulatory activities concerning PFAS 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. As the database of studies of both PFOA and PFOS has expanded, the EPA has developed human health effects documents summarizing the available data from these studies. In February 2014, the EPA initiated external peer review of its draft human health effects documents for PFOA and PFOS. The peer review panel met in August 2014. In May 2016, the EPA announced lifetime health advisory levels for PFOA and PFOS at 70 parts per trillion (ppt) (superseding the provisional levels established by the EPA in 2009 of 400 ppt for PFOA and 200 ppt for PFOS). Where PFOA and PFOS are found together, EPA recommends that the concentrations be added together, and the lifetime health advisory for PFOA and PFOS combined is also 70 ppt. Lifetime health advisories, which are non-enforceable and non-regulatory, provide information about concentrations of drinking water contaminants at which adverse health effects are not expected to occur over the specified exposure duration. To collect exposure information under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA published on May 2, 2012 a list of unregulated substances, including six PFAS chemicals, required to be monitored during the period 2013-2015 by public water system suppliers to determine the extent of their occurrence. Through January 2017, the EPA reported results for 4,920 public water supplies nationwide. Based on the 2016 lifetime health advisory, 13 public water supplies exceed the level for PFOA and 46 exceed the level for PFOS (unchanged from the July 2016 EPA summary). A technical advisory issued by EPA in September 2016 on laboratory analysis of drinking water samples stated that 65 public water supplies had exceeded the combined level for PFOA and PFOS. These results are based on one or more samples collected during the period 2012-2015 and do not necessarily reflect current conditions of these public water supplies. EPA reporting does not identify the sources of the PFOA and PFOS in the public water supplies.

The Company is continuing to make progress in its work, under the supervision of state regulators, to remediate historic disposal of PFAS-containing waste associated with manufacturing operations at its Decatur, Alabama; Cottage Grove, Minnesota; and Cordova, Illinois plants. As previously reported, the Company entered into a voluntary remedial action agreement with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to remediate the presence of PFAS in the soil and groundwater at the Company’s

manufacturing facility in Decatur, Alabama associated with the historic (1978-1998) incorporation of wastewater treatment plant sludge. With ADEM’s agreement, 3M is installing a multilayer cap on the former sludge incorporation areas and implementing groundwater migration controls and treatment.

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 certain PFAS 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 certain PFAS 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 (MDH) to be safe for human consumption over a lifetime) for certain PFAS for which a HBV and/or HRL exists as a result of contamination from these sites; (iii) remediating identified sources of other PFAS at these sites that are not controlled by actions to remediate PFOA and PFOS; and (iv) sharing information with the MPCA about certain 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 agreed upon 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 recommended by the Company and approved by the MPCA. Remediation work has been completed at the Oakdale and Woodbury sites, and they are in an operational maintenance mode. Remediation work has been substantially completed at the Cottage Grove site, with operational and maintenance activities ongoing.

In August 2014, the Illinois EPA approved a request by the Company to establish a groundwater management zone at its manufacturing facility in Cordova, Illinois, which includes ongoing pumping of impacted site groundwater, groundwater monitoring and routine reporting of results.

In May 2017, the MDH issued new HBVs for PFOA and PFOS. The new HBVs are 35 ppt for PFOA and 27 ppt for PFOS. In connection with its announcement the MDH stated that “Drinking water with PFOA and PFOS, even at the levels above the updated values, does not represent an immediate health risk. These values are designed to reduce long-term health risks across the population and are based on multiple safety factors to protect the most vulnerable citizens, which makes them overprotective for most of the residents in our state.” In December 2017, the MDH issued a new HBV for perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) of 2 parts per billion (ppb). In February 2018, the MDH published reports finding no unusual rates of certain cancers or adverse birth outcomes (low birth rates or premature births) among residents of Washington and Dakota Counties in Minnesota. In April 2019, the MDH issued a new HBV for PFOS of 15 ppt and a new HBV for PFHxS of 47 ppt.

In May 2018, the EPA announced a four-step PFAS action plan, which includes evaluating the need to set Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFOS and beginning the steps necessary to designate PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA. In November 2018, the EPA asked for public comment on draft toxicity assessments for two PFAS compounds, including PFBS. In February 2019, the EPA issued a PFAS Action Plan that outlines short- and long-term actions the EPA is taking to address PFAS – actions that include developing a national drinking water determination for PFOA and PFOS, strengthening enforcement authorities and evaluating cleanup approaches, nationwide drinking water monitoring for PFAS, expanding scientific knowledge for understanding and managing risk from PFAS, and developing consistent risk communication tools for communicating with other agencies and the public. With respect to groundwater contaminated with PFOA and PFOS, the EPA issued interim recommendations in December 2019, providing guidance for screening levels and preliminary remediation goals for groundwater that is a current or potential drinking water source, to inform final clean-up levels of contaminated sites. In February 2020, the EPA provided notice and requested public comment on certain preliminary determinations to regulate PFOA and PFOS under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). In June 2020, 3M submitted comments on EPA’s preliminary determinations to regulate PFOA and PFOS under the SDWA.

EPA announced in its Spring 2020 Regulatory Agenda, released in June 2020, that it intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA in August 2020.

The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) within the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft Toxicological Profile for PFAS for public review and comment in June 2018. In the draft report, ATSDR proposed draft minimal risk levels (MRLs) for PFOS, PFOA and several other PFAS. An MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a

hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse non-cancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are not intended to define cleanup or action levels for ATSDR or other agencies. In August 2018, 3M submitted comments on the ATSDR proposal, noting that there are major shortcomings with the current draft, especially with the MRLs, and that the ATSDR’s profile must reflect the best science and full weight of evidence known about these chemicals.

Several state legislatures and state agencies have been evaluating or have taken actions related to cleanup standards, groundwater values or drinking water values for PFOS, PFOA, and other PFAS, and 3M has submitted various responsive comments. In September 2019, 3M and several other parties filed a lawsuit in New Hampshire state court to enjoin new PFAS regulations in New Hampshire. In November 2019, the court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the regulations from being enforced. In April 2020, the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed to review several issues related to the preliminary injunctive order. In July 2020, the governor signed a bill passed by the New Hampshire legislature setting the same drinking water standards that had been enjoined by the court.

Vermont finalized drinking water standards for a combination of PFOA, PFOS and three other PFAS in March 2020. New Jersey finalized drinking water standards and designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances in June 2020. Some other states have also been evaluating or have taken actions relating to PFOA, PFOS and other PFAS in products such as food packaging, carpets and other products.

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

Litigation Related to Historical PFAS Manufacturing Operations in Alabama

As previously reported, a former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against 3M, BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, and others in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the “St. John” case), seeking property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company’s Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The parties have agreed to continue to stay the St. John case through September 2020, pending ongoing mediation between the parties involved in this case and another case discussed below. Two additional putative class actions filed in the same court by certain residents in the vicinity of the Decatur plant seeking relief on similar grounds (the Chandler case and the Stover case, respectively) are stayed pending the resolution of class certification issues in the St. John case.

In October 2015, West Morgan-East Lawrence Water & Sewer Authority (Water Authority) filed an individual complaint against 3M Company, Dyneon, L.L.C, and Daikin America, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint also includes representative plaintiffs who brought the complaint on behalf of themselves, and a class of all owners and possessors of property who use water provided by the Water Authority and five local water works to which the Water Authority supplies water (collectively, the “Water Utilities”). The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief based on allegations that the defendants’ chemicals, including PFOA and PFOS from their manufacturing processes in Decatur, have contaminated the water in the Tennessee River at the water intake, and that the chemicals cannot be removed by the water treatment processes utilized by the Water Authority. In April 2019, 3M and the Water Authority settled the lawsuit for $35 million, which will fund a new water filtration system, with 3M indemnifying the Water Authority from liability resulting from the resolution of the currently pending and future lawsuits against the Water Authority alleging liability or damages related to 3M PFAS. The putative class claims brought by the representative plaintiffs who were supplied drinking water by the Water Authority (the “Lindsey” case) remain, with a trial set for October 2020. 3M has filed its opposition to class certification and a motion for summary judgment. Discovery is ongoing. The parties are in active discussions regarding a negotiated resolution, and the case has been stayed through September 2020.

In June 2016, the Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. (Riverkeeper), a non-profit corporation, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against 3M; BFI Waste Systems of Alabama; the City of Decatur, Alabama; and the Municipal Utilities Board of Decatur, Morgan County, Alabama. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in connection with the disposal of certain PFAS through their ownership and operation of their respective sites. The complaint further alleges such practices may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and/or the environment and that Riverkeeper has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm caused by defendants’ failure to abate the endangerment unless the court grants the requested relief, including declaratory and injunctive relief. This case has been stayed through August 2020, pending ongoing mediation between the parties in conjunction with the St. John case.

In August 2016, a group of over 200 plaintiffs filed a putative class action against West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority), 3M, Dyneon, Daikin, BFI, and the City of Decatur in state court in Lawrence County, Alabama (the “Billings” case). Plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence, Morgan and other counties who are or have been customers of the Water Authority. They contend defendants have released PFAS that contaminate the Tennessee River and, in turn, their drinking water, causing damage to their health and properties. In January 2017, the court in the St. John case, discussed above, stayed this litigation pending resolution of the St. John case.

In January 2017, several hundred plaintiffs sued 3M, Dyneon and Daikin America in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama (the “Owens” case). The plaintiffs are owners of property, residents, and holders of property interests who receive their water from the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority). They assert common law claims for negligence, nuisance, trespass, wantonness and battery, and they seek injunctive relief and punitive damages. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants own and operate manufacturing and disposal facilities in Decatur that have released and continue to release PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals into the groundwater and surface water of their sites, resulting in discharges into the Tennessee River. The plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the alleged discharges, the water supplied by the Water Authority to the plaintiffs was, and is, contaminated with PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals at a level dangerous to humans. The court denied a motion by co-defendant Daikin to stay this case pending resolution of the St. John case, and the case is progressing through discovery.

In November 2017, a putative class action (the “King” case) was filed against 3M, Dyneon, Daikin America and the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama who receive their water from the Water Authority and seek injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, compensatory and punitive damages for their alleged personal injuries. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants own and operate manufacturing and disposal facilities in Decatur, Alabama that have released and continue to release PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals into the groundwater and surface water of their sites, resulting in discharges into the Tennessee River. The plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the alleged discharges, the water supplied by the Water Authority to the plaintiffs was, and is, contaminated with PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals at a level dangerous to humans. In November 2019, the King plaintiffs amended their complaint to withdraw all class allegations, dismiss the Water Authority as a defendant and add 24 new individual plaintiffs (for a total of 59 plaintiffs). Discovery in this case is proceeding.

In July 2019, 3M announced that it had initiated an investigation into the possible presence of PFAS in three closed municipal landfills in Decatur that accepted waste from 3M’s Decatur plant and other companies in the 1960s through the 1980s. 3M is working with local and state entities as it conducts its investigation and will report the results and recommended remedial action, if any, to those entities and the public. 3M is also defending or has received notice of potential lawsuits in state and federal court brought by individual property owners who claim damages related to historical PFAS disposal at former area landfills near their properties.

Litigation Related to Historical PFAS Manufacturing Operations in Minnesota

In July 2016, the City of Lake Elmo filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against 3M alleging that the City suffered damages from drinking water supplies contaminated with PFAS, including costs to construct alternative sources of drinking water. In April 2019, 3M and the City of Lake Elmo agreed to settle the lawsuit for less than $5 million.

State Attorneys General Litigation related to PFAS

Minnesota. In December 2010, the State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court against 3M seeking damages and injunctive relief with respect to the presence of PFAS in the groundwater, surface water, fish or other aquatic life, and sediments in the state of Minnesota (the “NRD Lawsuit”). In February 2018, 3M and the State of Minnesota reached a resolution of the NRD Lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, 3M agreed to provide an $850 million grant to the State for a special “3M Water Quality and Sustainability Fund.” This Fund, which is administered by the State, will enable projects that support water sustainability in the Twin Cities East Metro region, such as continued delivery of water to residents and enhancing groundwater recharge to support sustainable growth. Other purposes of the grant include habitat and recreation improvements, such as fishing piers, trails, and open space preservation. 3M recorded a pre-tax charge of $897 million, inclusive of legal fees and other related obligations, in the first quarter of 2018 associated with the resolution of this matter.

New York. The State of New York, by its Attorney General, has filed four lawsuits (in June 2018, February 2019, July 2019, and November 2019) against 3M and other defendants seeking to recover the costs incurred in responding to PFAS contamination

allegedly caused by Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) manufactured by 3M and others. Each of the four suits was filed in Albany County Supreme Court before being removed to federal court, and each has been transferred to the multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding for AFFF cases, which is discussed further below. The state is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive and equitable relief in the form of a monetary fund for the State’s reasonably expected future damages, and/or requiring defendants to perform investigative and remedial work.

Ohio. In December 2018, the State of Ohio, by its Attorney General, filed a lawsuit in the Common Pleas Court of Lucas County, Ohio against 3M, Tyco Fire Products LP, Chemguard, Inc., Buckeye Fire Equipment Co., National Foam, Inc., and Angus Fire Armour Corp., seeking injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages for remediation costs and alleged injury to Ohio natural resources from AFFF manufacturers. This case was removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL.

New Jersey. In March 2019, the New Jersey Attorney General filed two actions against 3M, DuPont, and Chemours on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), the NJDEP’s commissioner, and the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund regarding alleged discharges at two DuPont facilities in Pennsville, New Jersey (Salem County) and Parlin, New Jersey (Middlesex County). 3M is included as a defendant in both cases because it allegedly supplied PFOA to DuPont for use at the facilities at issue. Both cases expressly seek to have the defendants pay all costs necessary to investigate, remediate, assess, and restore the affected natural resources of New Jersey. DuPont removed these cases to federal court. In August 2019, the court stayed all proceedings in these actions pending a ruling on NJDEP’s motions to remand the cases to state court. In April 2020, the federal court denied the state’s motion to remand. In June 2020, the court entered a consent order lifting the stay and consolidating the two actions, along with two others brought by the NJDEP relating to the DuPont facilities, for case management and pretrial purposes.

In May 2019, the New Jersey Attorney General and NJDEP filed a lawsuit against 3M, DuPont, and six other companies, alleging natural resource damages from AFFF products and seeking damages, including punitive damages, and associated fees. This case was removed to federal court and transferred to the AFFF MDL.

New Hampshire. In May 2019, the New Hampshire Attorney General filed two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state’s drinking water supplies and other natural resources by PFAS chemicals. The first lawsuit was filed against 3M and seven co-defendants, alleging PFAS contamination resulting from the use of AFFF products at several sites around the state. This case was removed to federal court and transferred to the AFFF MDL. The second suit asserts PFAS contamination from non-AFFF sources and names 3M, DuPont, and Chemours as defendants. This suit remains in state court in early stages of litigation. In its June 2020 ruling on defendants’ motions to dismiss, the court dismissed the state’s trespass claim, but allowed several claims to proceed.

Vermont. In June 2019, the Vermont Attorney General filed two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state’s drinking water supplies and other natural resources by PFAS chemicals. The first lawsuit was filed against 3M and ten co-defendants, alleging PFAS contamination resulting from the use of AFFF products at several sites around the state. This case was removed to federal court and transferred to the AFFF MDL. The second suit asserts PFAS contamination from non-AFFF sources and names 3M and several entities related to DuPont and Chemours as defendants. This suit is proceeding in state court. In May 2020, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, but dismissed the state’s trespass claim as to property the state does not own. The case remains in early stages of litigation.

Michigan. In May 2019, the Michigan Attorney General issued a request for proposal seeking outside legal expertise in pursuing claims against manufacturers, distributors, and other parties related to PFAS. In January 2020, the Michigan Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court against 3M, Dyneon, DuPont, Chemours and others seeking injunctive and equitable relief and damages for alleged injury to Michigan public natural resources and its residents relating to PFAS. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in May 2020.

Guam. In September 2019, the Attorney General of Guam filed a lawsuit against 3M and other defendants relating to contamination of the territory’s drinking water supplies and other natural resources by PFAS, allegedly resulting from the use of AFFF products at several sites around the island. This lawsuit has been removed to federal court and transferred to the AFFF MDL.

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. In December 2019, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory, filed a lawsuit against 3M and other defendants relating to contamination of the territory’s drinking water

supplies and other natural resources by PFAS, allegedly resulting from the use of AFFF products. This lawsuit has been removed to federal court and transferred to the AFFF MDL.

In addition to the above state attorneys general actions, the Company is in discussions with several other state attorneys general and agencies and responding to information and other requests relating to PFAS matters.

Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Environmental Litigation

3M manufactured and marketed AFFF for use in firefighting at airports and military bases from approximately 1963 to 2002. As of June 30, 2020, 730 lawsuits (including 25 putative class actions) have been filed against 3M (along with other defendants) in various state and federal courts where current or former airports, military bases, or fire training facilities are or were located. As previously noted, some of these cases have been brought by state or territory attorneys general. In most of these cases, plaintiffs typically allege that certain PFAS used in AFFF contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was used and seek damages for alleged injuries such as loss of use and enjoyment of properties, diminished property values, investigation costs, remediation costs, personal injury and/or funds for medical monitoring. 249 cases filed since October 2019 have been brought by current or former firefighters who claim to have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to AFFF while using the product. The United States, the U.S. Department of Defense and several companies have been sued along with 3M, including but not limited to Ansul Co. (acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Chemguard, Chemours, DuPont, National Foam, Inc., and United Technologies Corp.

In December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) granted motions to transfer and consolidate all AFFF cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina to be managed in an MDL proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. Additional AFFF cases continue to be transferred into the MDL as they are filed or removed to federal court. As of June 30, 2020, there were 725 cases in the MDL, 715 of which name 3M as a defendant. The parties in the MDL are currently in the process of conducting discovery.

In June 2019, several subsidiaries of Valero Energy Corporation, an independent petroleum refiner, filed eight AFFF cases against 3M and other defendants, including DuPont/Chemours, National Foam, Buckeye Fire Equipment, and Kidde-Fenwal, in various state courts. Plaintiffs seek damages that allegedly have been or will be incurred in investigating and remediating PFAS contamination at their properties and replacing or disposing of AFFF products containing long-chain PFAS. Two of these cases have been removed to federal court and transferred to the AFFF MDL. Five cases remain pending in state courts where they are in early stages of litigation, after Valero dismissed its Ohio state court action without prejudice in October 2019. The parties in the state court cases have agreed to stay all five cases through November 2020.

Two subsidiaries of Husky Energy filed suit in April 2020 against 3M and other AFFF manufacturers in Wisconsin state court relating to alleged PFAS contamination from AFFF use at Husky facilities in Superior, Wisconsin and Lima, Ohio. This case remains in early stages of litigation.

As of June 30, 2020, the Company was named but not served in nine other AFFF lawsuits filed by individuals in state courts against the Company and other defendants.

Other PFAS-related Product and Environmental Litigation

3M manufactured and sold products containing various PFOA and PFOS, including Scotchgard, for several decades. Starting in 2017, 3M has been served with individual and putative class action complaints in various state and federal courts alleging, among other things, that 3M’s customers’ improper disposal of PFOA and PFOS resulted in the contamination of groundwater or surface water. The plaintiffs in these cases generally allege that 3M failed to warn its customers about the hazards of improper disposal of the product. They also generally allege that contaminated groundwater has caused various injuries, including personal injury, loss of use and enjoyment of their properties, diminished property values, investigation costs, and remediation costs. Several companies have been sued along with 3M, including Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Honeywell International Inc. f/k/a Allied-Signal Inc. and/or AlliedSignal Laminate Systems, Inc., Wolverine World Wide Inc., Georgia-Pacific LLC, E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co., Chemours Co., and various carpet manufacturers.

In New York, 3M is defending 40 individual cases and one putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and four additional cases filed in New York state court against 3M, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. (Saint-Gobain), Honeywell International Inc. and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co. (DuPont). The plaintiffs allege that 3M manufactured and sold PFOA that was used for manufacturing purposes at Saint-Gobain’s and Honeywell’s facilities located in the Village of Hoosick Falls and the Town of Hoosick. The plaintiffs claim that the drinking water around Hoosick Falls became contaminated with unsafe levels of PFOA due to the activities of the defendants and allege that they suffered bodily injury due to the ingestion and inhalation of PFOA. The plaintiffs seek unstated compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. 3M has answered the complaints in these cases, which are now proceeding through discovery. The plaintiffs in the putative class action have moved for class certification. 3M is also defending eight additional cases in New York filed by Nassau County drinking water providers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs in these cases allege that 3M, DuPont, and additional unnamed defendants are responsible for the contamination of plaintiffs’ water supply sources with various PFAS compounds. DuPont’s motion to transfer these cases to the AFFF MDL was denied in March 2020. These cases are in the preliminary stages of litigation.

In Michigan, one consolidated putative class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against 3M and Wolverine World Wide (Wolverine) and other defendants. The action arises from Wolverine’s allegedly improper disposal of materials and wastes, including 3M Scotchgard, related to Wolverine’s shoe manufacturing operations. Plaintiffs allege Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its manufacturing process and that chemicals from 3M’s product contaminated the environment and drinking water sources after disposal. In addition to the consolidated federal court putative class action, as of June 30, 2020, 3M has been named as a defendant in approximately 267 private individual actions in Michigan state court based on similar allegations. These cases are coordinated for pre-trial purposes. Four of these cases were selected for bellwether trials in 2020. In January 2020, the court issued the first round of dispositive motion rulings related to the first two bellwether cases, including dismissing the second bellwether case entirely and dismissing certain plaintiffs’ medical monitoring and risk of future disease claims, and granting summary judgment to the defendants on one plaintiff’s cholesterol injury claims. The plaintiffs settled the first bellwether case in early 2020. In June 2020, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider the dismissal of the second bellwether case. The court has since allowed the addition of another bellwether case. The three bellwether trials are scheduled to begin in March 2021. The parties are engaged in mediation in both the putative class action and the state court mass action.

Wolverine also filed a third-party complaint against 3M in a suit by the State of Michigan and intervenor townships that seeks to compel Wolverine to investigate and address contamination associated with its historic disposal activity. 3M filed an answer and counterclaims to Wolverine’s third-party complaint in June 2019. In September and October 2019, the parties (including 3M as third-party defendant) engaged in mediation. In December 2019, the State of Michigan, the intervening townships, and Wolverine announced that they had tentatively resolved the State and townships’ claims against Wolverine in exchange for a $70 million payment and certain future remediation measures by Wolverine. In February 2020, the court approved a Consent Decree that memorializes Wolverine’s ongoing remediation obligations and the State’s and intervening townships’ covenants not to bring further lawsuits as to the remediated area. 3M has been formally designated as a “Contributing Party,” and as such, the State’s and townships’ covenants will also apply to 3M. In February 2020, 3M and Wolverine executed an agreement to resolve the legal claims between the two companies. Pursuant to the agreement, 3M made a one-time financial contribution of $55 million in March 2020 to support Wolverine’s past and ongoing efforts to address PFAS remediation under Wolverine’s Consent Decree with the State and the townships. This amount was part of 3M’s charge taken in the fourth quarter of 2019 as discussed below in the “Environmental Liabilities and Insurance Receivables” section.

3M is also a defendant, together with Georgia-Pacific as co-defendant, in a putative class action in federal court in Michigan brought by residents of Parchment, who allege that the municipal drinking water is contaminated from waste generated by a paper mill owned by Georgia-Pacific’s corporate predecessor. The defendants have moved to dismiss certain claims in the complaint, and the parties have begun discovery on the remaining claims.

In Alabama and Georgia, 3M is defending four state court cases, including three brought by municipal water utilities, relating to 3M’s sale of PFAS-containing products to carpet manufacturers in Georgia. The plaintiffs in these cases allege that the carpet manufacturers improperly discharged PFAS into the surface water and groundwater, contaminating drinking water supplies of cities located downstream along the Coosa River, including Rome, Georgia and Centre and Gadsden, Alabama. The three water utility cases remain in the early stages of litigation. One state court case was brought by individuals asserting PFAS contamination by the Georgia carpet manufacturers and seeking economic damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of Rome and Floyd County water

subscribers. This case has been removed to federal court where it remains in the early stages of litigation. 3M filed a motion to dismiss the putative class action in April 2020, which remains pending.

In Delaware, 3M is defending one putative class action brought by individuals alleging PFAS contamination of their water supply resulting from the operations of local metal plating facilities. Plaintiffs allege that 3M supplied PFAS to the metal plating facilities. DuPont, Chemours, and the metal platers have also been named as defendants. This case has been removed from state court to federal court, and plaintiffs have withdrawn its motion to remand to state court and filed an amended complaint. 3M has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

In New Jersey, 3M is defending an action brought in federal court by Middlesex Water Company, alleging PFAS contamination of its water wells. 3M’s motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL was denied. 3M has moved to dismiss the complaint, and the case is currently in the early stages of discovery. In addition, 3M is defending a case brought in state court by multiple individuals with private drinking water wells near Dupont and Solvay facilities that were allegedly supplied with PFAS by 3M. Plaintiffs seek medical monitoring and damages. This case has been removed to federal court, where it remains in early stages.

In October 2018, 3M and other defendants, including DuPont and Chemours, were named in a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio brought by the named plaintiff, a firefighter allegedly exposed to PFAS chemicals through his use of firefighting foam, purporting to represent a putative class of all U.S. individuals with detectable levels of PFAS in their blood. The plaintiff brings claims for negligence, battery, and conspiracy and seeks injunctive relief, including an order “establishing an independent panel of scientists” to evaluate PFAS. 3M and other entities jointly filed a motion to dismiss in February 2019. In September 2019, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In February 2020, the court denied 3M’s motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL. The case is in early stages of litigation.

Other PFAS-related Matters

In July 2019, the Company received a written request from the Subcommittee on Environment of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, seeking certain documents and information relating to the Company’s manufacturing and distribution of PFAS products. In September 2019, a 3M representative testified before and responded to questions from the Subcommittee on Environment with respect to PFAS and the Company’s environmental stewardship initiatives. The Company continues to cooperate with the Subcommittee.

The Company operates under a 2009 consent order issued under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (the “2009 TSCA consent order”) for the manufacture and use of two perfluorinated materials (FBSA and FBSEE) at its Decatur, Alabama site that does not permit release of these materials into “the waters of the United States.” In March 2019, the Company halted the manufacture, processing, and use of these materials at the site upon learning that these materials may have been released from certain specified processes at the Decatur site into the Tennessee River. In April 2019, the Company voluntarily disclosed the releases to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). During June and July 2019, the Company took steps to fully control the aforementioned processes by capturing all wastewater produced by the processes and by treating all air emissions. These processes have been back on-line and in operation since July 2019. The Company continues to cooperate with the EPA and ADEM in their investigations and will work with the regulatory authorities to demonstrate compliance with the release restrictions.

The Company is authorized to discharge wastewater from its Decatur plant pursuant to the terms of a Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by ADEM. The NPDES permit requires the Company to report on a monthly and quarterly basis the quality and quantity of pollutants discharged to the Tennessee River. In June 2019, the Company voluntarily disclosed to the EPA and ADEM that it had included incorrect values in certain of its monthly and quarterly reports. The Company has submitted the corrected values to both the EPA and ADEM.

As part of ongoing work with the EPA and ADEM to address compliance matters at the Decatur facility, the Company discovered it had not fully characterized its PFAS discharge in its NPDES permit. In September 2019, the Company disclosed the matter to the EPA and ADEM and announced that it had elected to temporarily idle certain other manufacturing processes at 3M Decatur. The Company is reviewing its operations at the plant, has installed wastewater treatment controls and has restarted idled processes.

As a result of the Company’s discussions with ADEM to address these and other related matters in the state of Alabama, 3M and ADEM have agreed to the terms of an interim Consent Order in July 2020 to cover all PFAS-related wastewater discharges and air emissions from the Company’s Decatur facility. Under the interim Consent Order, the Company’s principal obligations include commitments related to (i) future ongoing site operations such as (a) providing certain notices or reports and performing various analytical and characterization studies and (b) future capital improvements; and (ii) remediation activities, including certain on-site and off-site investigations and studies. Obligations related to ongoing future site operations under the Consent Order will involve additional operating costs and capital expenditures over multiple years. The Company does not expect them to have a material impact on its consolidated results of operations or financial position. With respect to remediation activities, financial obligations related to certain activities under the Consent Order are probable and estimable, and are included in the Company’s accruals for “other environmental liabilities” as described in the “Environmental Liabilities and Insurance Receivables” section below. As offsite investigation activities continue, additional remediation amounts may become probable and estimable in the future.

In December 2019, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Alabama for documents related to, among other matters, the Company’s compliance with the 2009 TSCA consent order and unpermitted discharges to the Tennessee River. The Company is cooperating with this inquiry and is producing documents in response to the subpoena.

In addition, as part of its ongoing evaluation of regulatory compliance at its Cordova, Illinois facility, the Company discovered it had not fully characterized its PFAS discharge in its NPDES permit for the Cordova facility. In November 2019, the Company disclosed this matter to the EPA, and in January 2020 disclosed this matter to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). The Company continues to work with the EPA and IEPA to address the discharge from the Cordova facility.

The Company is also reviewing operations at its other plants with similar manufacturing processes, such as the plant in Cottage Grove, Minnesota, to ensure those operations are in compliance with applicable environmental regulatory requirements and Company policies and procedures. As a result of these reviews, the Company discovered it had not fully characterized its PFAS discharge in its NPDES permit for the Cottage Grove facility. In March 2020, the Company disclosed this matter to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the EPA. In July 2020, the Company received an information request from MPCA for documents and information related to, among other matters, the Company’s compliance with the Clean Water Act at its Cottage Grove facility. The Company is cooperating with this inquiry and will be producing documents and information in response to the request for information. The Company continues to work with the MPCA and EPA to address the discharges from the Cottage Grove facility.

Separately, in June 2020, the Company reported to EPA and MPCA that it had not fully complied with elements of the inspection, characterization and waste stream profile verification process of the Waste and Feedstream Analysis plan of its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permit for its Cottage Grove incinerator.

In February 2020, the Company received an information request from EPA for documents and information related to, among other matters, the Company’s compliance with the Clean Water Act at its facilities that manufacture, process and use PFAS, including the Decatur, Cordova and Cottage Grove facilities. The Company is cooperating with this inquiry and is producing documents and information in response to the request for information.

The Company will continue to work with relevant state and federal agencies as it conducts these reviews.

The Company cannot predict at this time the outcomes of resolving these compliance matters or what potential actions may be taken by the regulatory agencies.

Other Environmental Litigation

In July 2018, the Company, along with more than 120 other companies, was served with a complaint seeking cost recovery and contribution towards the cleaning up of approximately eight miles of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey. The plaintiff, Occidental Chemical Corporation, alleges that it agreed to design and pay the estimated $165 million cost to remove and cap sediment containing eight chemicals of concern, including PCBs and dioxins. The complaint seeks to spread those costs among the defendants, including the Company. The Company’s involvement in the case relates to its past use of two commercial drum conditioning 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.

For environmental matters and litigation described above, unless otherwise stated, no liability has been recorded as the Company believes liability in those matters is not probable and estimable and the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss at this time. The Company’s environmental liabilities and insurance receivables are described below.

Environmental Liabilities and Insurance Receivables

The Company periodically examines whether the contingent liabilities related to the environmental matters and litigation described above are probable and estimable based on experience and developments in those matters. During the six months ended June 30, 2020, the Company increased its accrual for PFAS-related other environmental liabilities by $43 million and made related payments of $106 million. During the first quarter of 2019, the EPA issued its PFAS Action Plan and the Company settled the litigation with the Water Authority (both matters are described in more detail above). The Company completed a comprehensive review with the assistance of environmental consultants and other experts regarding environmental matters and litigation related to historical PFAS manufacturing operations in Minnesota, Alabama, Gendorf Germany, and at four former landfills in Alabama. As a result of these developments and of that review, the Company increased its accrual for “other environmental liabilities” by $235 million pre-tax (including the settlement with the Water Authority) in the first quarter of 2019. During the fourth quarter of 2019, 3M updated its evaluation of certain customer-related litigation based on continued, productive settlement discussions with multiple parties. As previously disclosed, 3M has been engaged in mediation and resolution negotiations in multiple cases. In addition, during the fourth quarter, the Company updated its assessment of environmental matters and litigation related to its historical PFAS manufacturing operations and expanded its evaluation of other 3M sites that may have used certain PFAS-containing materials and locations at which they were disposed. As a result of these actions during the fourth quarter the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $214 million. As of June 30, 2020, the Company had recorded liabilities of $382 million for “other environmental liabilities.” The accruals represent the Company’s best estimate of the probable loss. The Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss in excess of the established accruals at this time.

As of June 30, 2020, the Company had recorded liabilities of $20 million for estimated non-PFAS related “environmental remediation” costs to clean up, treat, or remove hazardous substances at current or former 3M manufacturing or third-party sites. The Company evaluates available facts with respect to each individual site each quarter and 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.

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 ongoing, the Company cannot estimate a possible loss or range of loss in excess of the associated established accruals for the reasons described above.

The Company has both pre-1986 general and product liability occurrence coverage and post-1985 occurrence reported product liability and other environmental coverage for environmental matters and litigation. As of June 30, 2020, the Company’s receivable for insurance recoveries related to the environmental matters and litigation was $8 million. Various factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of this and future expected increases in the receivable, including (i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers;

(ii) the extent to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, (iii) the outcome of negotiations with insurers, and (iv) the scope of the insurers’ purported defenses and exclusions to avoid coverage.

Product Liability Litigation

As of June 30, 2020, the Company was a named defendant in 19 lawsuits in the United States involving 23 plaintiffs and one Canadian punitive class action with a single named plaintiff, alleging that the Bair Hugger™ patient warming system caused a surgical site infection.

As previously disclosed, 3M had been a named defendant in lawsuits in federal courts involving over 5,000 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim they underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger™ patient warming system. The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief based on theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect, fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud, deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising acts.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to be managed in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding. In July 2019, the court excluded several of the plaintiffs’ causation experts, and granted summary judgment for 3M in all cases pending at that time in the MDL. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiffs have also appealed a 2018 jury verdict in favor of 3M in the first bellwether trial in the MDL and appealed the dismissal of another bellwether case.

Among the 19 remaining lawsuits in the United States, 16 are in the MDL court and three are in state court. The MDL court declined to remand one case to Oklahoma state court and has stayed all 16 remaining lawsuits pending the appeal of the summary judgment decision. In February 2020, the MDL court remanded two cases to state court in Jackson County, Missouri that combined Bair Hugger product liability claims with medical malpractice claims. There is also one case in Hidalgo County, Texas that combines Bair Hugger product liability claims with medical malpractice claims. In August 2019, the MDL court enjoined the individual plaintiff from pursuing his claims in Texas state court because he had previously filed and dismissed a claim in the MDL. That plaintiff has appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Texas state court has stayed the entire case while the appeal is pending.

As previously disclosed, 3M had been named a defendant in 61 cases in Minnesota state court. In January 2018, the Minnesota state court excluded plaintiffs’ experts and granted 3M’s motion for summary judgment on general causation. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling and the state court’s punitive damages ruling. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the Minnesota state court orders in their entirety and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for review. Final dismissal was entered in April 2019, effectively ending the Minnesota state court cases.

In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger™ patient warming system. The representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive damages) under Canadian law based on theories similar to those asserted in the MDL.

No liability has been recorded for the Bair Hugger™ litigation because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and estimable at this time.

Aearo Technologies sold Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2 earplugs starting in about 2003. 3M acquired Aearo Technologies in 2008 and sold these earplugs from 2008 through 2015, when the product was discontinued. In December 2018, a military veteran filed an individual lawsuit against 3M in the San Bernardino Superior Court in California alleging that he sustained personal injuries while serving in the military caused by 3M’s Dual-Ended Combat Arms earplugs – Version 2. The plaintiff asserts claims of product liability and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. The plaintiff seeks various damages, including medical and related expenses, loss of income, and punitive damages. As of June 30, 2020, the Company is a named defendant in approximately 2,853 lawsuits (including 14 putative class actions) in various state and federal courts that purport to represent approximately 11,650 individual claimants making similar allegations. In April 2019, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted motions to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to be managed

in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. Discovery is underway. The plaintiffs and 3M filed preliminary summary judgment motions on the government contractor defense. In July 2020, based on the current record, the court granted the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion and denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion, ruling that plaintiffs’ claims are not barred by the government contractor defense. The first bellwether case is scheduled for April 2021. No liability has been recorded for these matters because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and estimable at this time.

For product liability litigation matters described in this section for which a liability has been recorded, the amount recorded is not material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss in excess of the established accruals at this time.

Securities Litigation

In July 2019, Heavy & General Laborers’ Locals 472 & 172 Welfare Fund filed a putative securities class action against 3M Company, its former Chairman and CEO, current Chairman and CEO, and current CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In August 2019, an individual plaintiff filed a similar putative securities class action in the same district. Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding 3M's exposure to liability associated with PFAS, and bring claims for damages under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual defendants. In October 2019, the court consolidated the securities class actions and appointed a group of lead plaintiffs. In January 2020, defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The suit is in the early stages of litigation.

In October 2019, a follow-on derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against 3M and several of its current and former executives and directors. In November and December 2019, two additional derivative lawsuits were filed in a Minnesota state court. The derivative lawsuits rely on similar factual allegations as the putative securities class action discussed above. Plaintiffs have agreed to stay these cases pending a ruling on a motion to dismiss the securities class action.

Federal False Claims Act / Qui Tam Litigation

In October 2019, 3M acquired Acelity, Inc. and its KCI subsidiaries, including Kinetic Concepts, Inc. and KCI USA, Inc. As previously disclosed in the SEC filings by the KCI entities, in 2009, Kinetic Concepts, Inc. received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. In 2011, following the completion of the government’s review and its decision declining to intervene in two qui tam actions described further below, the qui tam relator-plaintiffs’ pleadings were unsealed.

The government inquiry followed two qui tam actions filed in 2008 by two former employees against Kinetic Concepts, Inc. and KCI USA, Inc. (collectively, the “KCI defendants”) under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaints contain allegations that the KCI Defendants violated the federal False Claims Act by submitting false or fraudulent claims to federal healthcare programs by billing for V.A.C.^® Therapy in a manner that was not consistent with the Local Coverage Determinations issued by the Durable Medical Equipment Medicare Administrative Contractors and seek monetary damages. One complaint (the “Godecke case”) also contains allegations that the KCI Defendants retaliated against the relator-plaintiff for alleged whistle-blowing behavior.

In October 2016, the KCI Defendants filed counterclaims in the Godecke case, asserting breach of contract and conversion. In August 2017, the relator-plaintiff’s fraud claim in the Godecke case was dismissed in favor of the KCI defendants. In January 2018, the district court stayed the retaliation claim and the KCI Defendants' counterclaims pending the relator-plaintiff’s appeal. In September 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The district court has ordered a stay of the proceedings pending a status conference in August 2020. Separately, in June 2019, following discovery, the district court in the second case (the “Hartpence case”) entered summary judgment in the KCI Defendants’ favor on all of the relator-plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff then filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument in the Hartpence case was held in July 2020. The appellate court’s opinion remains pending. No liability has been recorded for these matters because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and estimable at this time.

Compliance Matter

The Company, through its internal processes, discovered certain travel activities and related funding and record keeping issues raising concerns, arising from marketing efforts by certain business groups based in China. The Company initiated an internal investigation to determine whether the expenditures may have violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or other potentially applicable anti-corruption laws. The Company has retained outside counsel and a forensic accounting firm to assist with the investigation. In July 2019, the Company voluntarily disclosed this investigation to both the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission and is cooperating with both agencies. The Company cannot predict at this time the outcome of its investigation or what potential actions may be taken by the Department of Justice or Securities and Exchange Commission.