Chemours has recorded asset retirement obligations, which are primarily related to closure, reclamation, and removal for mining operations relative to the extraction of titanium ore and other saleable minerals in the Titanium Technologies segment; and cap, cover, and post-closure maintenance of landfills in all segments.

The following table sets forth the activity in the Company’s asset retirement obligations for the years ended December 31, 2024, 2023 and 2022.


	Year Ended December 31,
	2024			2023			2022
Balance at January 1,	$	85		$	83		$	76
Increase in estimated cash outflows		24			1			2
Accretion expense		(6	)		3			10
Settlements and payments		(2	)		(2	)		(5	)
Balance at December 31,	$	101		$	85		$	83

Current portion	$	8		$	18		$	10
Non-current portion		93			67			73

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, from time to time, are subject to various lawsuits, claims, assessments, government investigations, regulatory proceedings and other legal proceedings with respect to product liability, intellectual property, personal injury, commercial, contractual, employment, regulatory, environmental, anti-trust, and other such matters that arise in the ordinary course of business in multiple jurisdictions. Any determination in such a proceeding 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, temporary or permanent suspension of operations or debarment or injunctive relief. In addition, Chemours, by virtue of its status as a subsidiary of EID prior to its separation on July 1, 2015 ("the Separation"), is subject to or required under the Separation-related agreements executed prior to the Separation to indemnify EID against various pending legal proceedings. The Company vigorously defends such lawsuits, claims, assessments, government investigations and other legal proceedings, whether raised against itself or under its indemnity obligation. Disputes between Chemours and EID may arise regarding indemnification matters, including disputes based on matters of law or contract interpretation. Should such disputes arise, they could materially adversely affect the Company.

When making determinations about recording liabilities related to legal proceedings or unasserted claims that are probable of assertion, the Company complies with the requirements of ASC 450, Contingencies, and related guidance. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. Where there is an estimated range of probable loss and an amount within the range of loss appears at the time to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range, the Company accrues a liability for that specific amount. When no amount within an estimated range of probable loss is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company accrues a liability for the minimum amount in the range. When a material loss contingency is reasonably possible, but not probable, the Company does not accrue a liability, but instead discloses the nature of the matter and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, to the extent such estimate can be made. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and whether a loss or range of loss is reasonably estimable. The Company’s judgments are subjective based on the status of the legal or regulatory proceedings, the merits of the Company’s defenses and consultation with in-house and outside legal counsel. Because of substantial uncertainties related to these matters, accruals are based on the best information available each period, including, among others, mediation, settlement discussions or agreements. As a matter progresses, the Company may receive information, through plaintiff demands, through discovery, in the form of reports of purported experts, or in the context of settlement or mediation discussions that purport to quantify an amount of alleged damages, but with which the Company may not agree. Furthermore, settlement discussions are complex and often involve potential amounts, scope and terms, which can be monetary and non-monetary, that one or more parties may not consider reasonable under the circumstances or indicative of the merits or potential outcome of any court proceeding with respect to the underlying claims. Such information may or may not lead the Company to determine that it is able to make a reasonable estimate as to a probable loss or range of loss in connection with a matter. As additional information becomes available, the Company reassesses the potential liability related to pending claims and litigation and may revise its estimates accordingly. Due to the inherent uncertainties of the legal and regulatory process in the multiple jurisdictions in the United States and internationally, management’s judgments may be materially different than the actual outcomes. The Company's ability to assess outcomes and make reasonable estimates of potential losses is further influenced by the fact that a resolution of one or more matters may impact the resolution of other similar matters in terms of timing, amount of liability, or both. Legal costs such as outside counsel fees and expenses are charged to expense in the period services are rendered.

Unless otherwise stated, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or a range of loss for the matters described below, potentially based on one or more of the following reasons: actual or potential plaintiffs have not claimed an amount of monetary damages or the amounts are unsupportable or exaggerated, the matters are in early stages, there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, there are significant factual issues to be resolved, the proceedings involve multiple defendants or potential defendants whose share of any potential responsibility has not been determined. Because litigation is subject to significant uncertainties, and adverse rulings, judgments or other outcomes could occur in the future, it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses substantially in excess of accrued liabilities or with respect to matters for which no liability has been accrued because losses are not currently probable and reasonably estimable.

Management believes the Company’s accounting treatment and disclosure for the matters discussed below are appropriate based on the facts and circumstances for each matter, which are discussed in further detail below.

The following table sets forth the components of the Company’s accrued litigation at December 31, 2024 and 2023.


	December 31,
	2024		2023
Asbestos	$	61	$	39
PFAS (1):
PFOA (2)		40		26
Other PFAS matters (3)		81		712
All other matters		26		9
Total accrued litigation	$	208	$	786

(1)

The Company is a named defendant and/or cost-sharing and defending DuPont, Corteva, and EID (together, the “DuPont Indemnitees”) in litigation related to the production and use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), including perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt (“PFOA”); hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (“HFPO Dimer Acid”, sometimes referred to as “GenX” or “C3 Dimer Acid”) and other compounds; and products that are manufactured or use such compounds, including Aqueous Film Forming Foam (“AFFF”).

(2)

PFOA includes matters under the "PFOA" section within this “Note 22 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”.

(3)

Other PFAS matters includes matters under the "PFAS" section within this “Note 22 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”.

The following table sets forth the current and long-term components of the Company’s accrued litigation and their balance sheet locations at December 31, 2024 and 2023.


		December 31,
	Balance Sheet Location	2024		2023
Accrued Litigation:
Current accrued litigation	Other accrued liabilities (Note 19)	$	112	$	713
Long-term accrued litigation	Other liabilities (Note 21)		96		73
Total accrued litigation		$	208	$	786

In January 2021, Chemours, DuPont, Corteva, and EID, a subsidiary of Corteva, entered into a binding MOU, reflecting the parties’ agreement to share potential future legacy liabilities relating to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") arising out of pre-July 1, 2015 conduct (i.e., “Indemnifiable Losses”, as defined in the separation agreement, dated as of June 26, 2015, as amended, between EID and Chemours (the “Separation Agreement”)) until the earlier to occur of: (i) December 31, 2040; (ii) the day on which the aggregate amount of Qualified Spend is equal to $4,000; or, (iii) a termination in accordance with the terms of the MOU (e.g., non-performance of the escrow funding requirements pursuant to the MOU by any party). As defined in the MOU, Qualified Spend includes:

The parties have agreed that, during the term of the cost-sharing arrangement, Chemours will bear half of the cost of such future potential legacy PFAS liabilities, and DuPont and Corteva will collectively bear the other half of the cost of such future potential legacy PFAS liabilities up to an aggregate $4,000, of which approximately $2,000 is available after consideration of the funding of the payment to the State of Ohio and supplemental payment to the State of Delaware. Any recoveries of Qualified Spend from DuPont and/or Corteva under the cost-sharing arrangement will be recognized as an offset to the Company’s cost of goods sold or selling, general, and administrative expense, as applicable, when realizable. Any Qualified Spend incurred by DuPont and/or Corteva under the cost-sharing arrangement will be recognized in the Company’s cost of goods sold or selling, general, and administrative expense, as applicable, when the amounts of such costs are probable and estimable or expensed as incurred with respect to period costs, such as legal expenses. During the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, the Company incurred expenditures subject to reimbursement of cost-sharing as Qualified Spend under the MOU of approximately $109 and $148, respectively, excluding litigation-related settlements. During the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, the Company received $47 and $88, respectively, of recovery from DuPont and Corteva.

After the term of this arrangement, Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the Separation Agreement would continue unchanged, subject in each case to certain exceptions set out in the MOU. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the parties have agreed to release certain claims regarding Chemours’ Delaware lawsuit and confidential arbitration (concerning the indemnification of specified liabilities that EID assigned to Chemours in its spin-off), including that Chemours has released any claim set forth in the complaint filed in the Delaware lawsuit, any other similar claims arising out of or resulting from the facts recited by Chemours in the complaint or the process and manner in which EID structured or conducted the spin-off, and any other claims that challenge the spin-off or the assumption of Chemours Liabilities (as defined in the Separation Agreement) by Chemours and the allocation thereof, subject in each case to certain exceptions set out in the MOU. The parties have further agreed not to bring any future, additional claims regarding the Separation Agreement or the MOU outside of arbitration.

As part of the MOU, the parties established an escrow account to support and manage the payments for potential future PFAS liabilities. The MOU provides that: (i) no later than each of September 30, 2021 and September 30, 2022, Chemours shall deposit $100 into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $100 in the aggregate into an escrow account, and (ii) no later than September 30 of each subsequent year through and including 2028, Chemours shall deposit $50 into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $50 in the aggregate into an escrow account. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the MOU, each party may be permitted to defer funding in any year. Additionally, if on December 31, 2028, the balance of the escrow account (including interest) is less than $700, Chemours will make 50% of the deposits and DuPont and Corteva together will make 50% of the deposits necessary to restore the balance of the escrow account to $700. Such payments will be made in a series of five consecutive annual equal installments commencing on September 30, 2029 pursuant to the escrow account replenishment terms as set forth in the MOU. Any funds that remain in escrow at termination of the MOU will revert to the party that deposited them. As such, future payments made by the Company into the escrow account will remain an asset of Chemours, and such payments will be reflected as a transfer to restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents on its consolidated balance sheets. As per the terms of the MOU, the Company deposited $100 into the escrow account in September 2022 and in 2021, which was recognized as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents on its consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2023. No withdrawals are permitted from the escrow account before January 2026, except for funding mutually agreed-upon third-party settlements in excess of $125. Starting in January 2026, withdrawals may be made from the escrow account to fund Qualified Spend if the parties’ aggregate Qualified Spend in that particular year is greater than $200. Starting in January 2031, the amounts in the escrow account can be used to fund any Qualified Spend. Future payments from the escrow account for potential future PFAS liabilities will be reflected on the Company’s consolidated statement of cash flows at that point in time. During 2023, $209 was drawn by Chemours from the escrow account to fund a portion of the U.S public water system class action suit settlement, which remained in escrow in a qualified settlement and is recognized as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents on the Company's consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2023. With the Effective date of such settlement being reached, Chemours no longer maintains its reversionary interest to the underlying restricted funds within the Water District Settlement Fund and, as such, the restricted cash and cash equivalents and the associated accrued liabilities were derecognized in the second quarter of 2024. Further discussion related to the U.S public water system class action suit settlement is included under the heading “United States Public Water System Class Action Suit Settlement and Related Opt-Outs” within this “Note 22 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”.

In September 2023, the parties entered into a supplemental agreement to the MOU, whereby the parties agreed to (i) release the funds held in escrow to fund, in part, the Water District Settlement Fund (discussed further below), (ii) waive the escrow funding obligation of each party due no later than September 30, 2023, and (iii) with respect to the escrow funding obligation due no later than September 30, 2024, waive the obligation of each of the parties under certain conditions as agreed to by the parties. The parties agreed to fund the payments due by September 30, 2024, and the Company funded $50 into the escrow account on September 30, 2024. As such, at December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, the Company had $50 and $0 deposited into the escrow account, respectively, which is recognized as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents on its consolidated balance sheets.

The parties have also sought insurance coverage for certain claims relating to PFAS matters, including claims in the AFFF MDL. In July 2024, a $45 settlement agreement was reached amongst the parties with one of the insurance carriers. Per agreement with the parties, the Company will receive approximately $23 of the settlement as it will be allocated amongst the parties in accordance with the percentage contribution in the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. Accordingly, during the year ended December 31, 2024, the Company recognized a $23 gain within selling, general, and administrative expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The parties will cooperate in good faith to enter into additional agreements reflecting the terms set forth in the MOU.

In the Separation, EID assigned its asbestos docket to Chemours. At both December 31, 2024 and 2023, there were approximately 800 lawsuits pending against EID alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, respectively. These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products.

With limited exception, the Company previously rejected EID’s demand for indemnity and defense of asbestos and product liability matters arising from an EID subsidiary, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., (“SGPI”). EID brought an arbitration proceeding on this issue and in November 2024, the Company and EID reached an agreement in principle and adjourned the arbitration. We expect to finalize the settlement agreement in the first quarter of 2025. Per the terms of the agreement in principle, the Company will assume approximately 20 current SGPI asbestos cases as well as all future SGPI asbestos and product liability claims. The agreement in principle also includes that the Company is entitled to insurance recoveries where applicable under certain existing insurance policies as well as potential cost sharing between the parties for certain cases.

At December 31, 2024 and 2023, Chemours had accruals of $61 and $39 related to these matters, respectively. Asbestos reserves recorded include estimated losses for current claims as well as an estimate of losses for future claims, except for the SGPI asbestos and product liability claims. Because of the limited history of SGPI asbestos and product liability claims, the Company has concluded that it is not able to reasonably estimate probable losses for future claims for these matters at this time.

In the Separation, EID assigned its benzene docket to Chemours. At December 31, 2024 and 2023, there were 22 and 20 cases pending, respectively, against EID alleging benzene-related illnesses, respectively. These cases consist of premises matters involving contractors and deceased former employees who claim exposure to benzene while working at EID sites primarily in the 1960s through the 1980s, and product liability claims based on alleged exposure to benzene found in trace amounts in aromatic hydrocarbon solvents used to manufacture EID products such as paints, thinners, and reducers.

Management believes that a loss is reasonably possible as to the docket as a whole; however, given the evaluation of each benzene matter is highly fact-driven and impacted by disease, exposure, and other factors, a range of such losses cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

In May 2021, the Company and EID filed suit in Delaware state court against multiple insurance companies for breach of their contractual obligations to indemnify Chemours and EID against liabilities, costs and losses relating to benzene litigation which are covered under liability insurance policies purchased by EID during the period 1967 to 1986. EID and Chemours are seeking payment of all costs and settlement amounts for past and future benzene cases falling under those policies. The outcome of this matter is not expected to have a material impact on Chemours’ results of operations or financial position. Over the course of the litigation, settlements have been negotiated with all of the insurers and Chemours and EIDP established a joint escrow account. In December 2024, Chemours and EIDP agreed to a 50/50 distribution of then-available escrow account funds with Chemours receiving $20, representing a release of previously recorded restricted cash.

Chemours does not, and has never, used “PFOA” (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt) as a polymerization aid nor sold it as a commercial product. Prior to the Separation, the performance chemicals segment of EID made PFOA at its Fayetteville Works site in Fayetteville, North Carolina (“Fayetteville”) and used PFOA as a polymerization aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers at certain sites, including: Washington Works, Parkersburg, West Virginia; Chambers Works, Deepwater, New Jersey ("Chambers Works"); Dordrecht Works, Netherlands; Changshu Works, China; and, Shimizu, Japan. These sites are now owned and/or operated by Chemours.

At December 31, 2024 and 2023, Chemours maintained an accrual of $40 and $26, respectively, related to PFOA matters under the Leach Settlement (discussed below), EID’s obligations under agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”), and voluntary commitments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (the “NJ DEP”). These obligations and voluntary commitments include surveying, sampling, and testing drinking water in and around certain Company sites, and offering treatment or an alternative supply of drinking water if tests indicate the presence of PFOA in drinking water at or greater than the applicable levels. The Company will continue to work with EPA, NJ DEP and other authorities regarding the extent of work that may be required with respect to these matters.

In 2004, EID settled a class action captioned Leach v. DuPont, filed in West Virginia state court, alleging that approximately 80,000 residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. Among the settlement terms, EID funded a series of health studies by an independent science panel of experts (“C8 Science Panel”) to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and diagnosed high cholesterol. Under the terms of the settlement, EID is obligated to fund up to $235 for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and pay the administrative costs associated with the program, including class counsel fees. The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring implemented the program, and testing is ongoing with associated payments to service providers disbursed from an escrow account which the Company replenishes pursuant to the settlement agreement. Through December 31, 2024, approximately $2 has been disbursed from escrow related to medical monitoring. While it is reasonably possible that the Company will incur additional costs related to the medical monitoring program, such costs cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible class members and the scope of testing.

In addition, under the Leach settlement agreement, EID must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well users. At Separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours, and is included in the $40 and $26 accrued at December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively.

Further, under the Leach settlement, class members may pursue personal injury claims against EID only for those diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. Approximately 3,500 lawsuits were subsequently filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi-district litigation (“MDL”) in Ohio federal court. These were resolved in March 2017 when EID entered into an agreement settling all MDL cases and claims, including all filed and unfiled personal injury cases and claims that were part of the plaintiffs’ counsel’s claims inventory, as well as cases tried to a jury verdict (the “First MDL Settlement”) for $670.7 in cash, with half paid by Chemours, and half paid by EID.

Concurrently with the First MDL Settlement, EID and Chemours agreed to a limited sharing of potential future PFOA costs (i.e. “Indemnifiable Losses”, as defined in the Separation Agreement between EID and Chemours) for a period of five years. The cost-sharing agreement entered concurrently with the First MDL Settlement has been superseded by the binding MOU addressing certain PFAS matters and costs. For more information on this matter refer to “Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) with DuPont, Corteva and EID” within this “Note 22 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”.

While all MDL lawsuits were dismissed or resolved through the First MDL Settlement, the First MDL Settlement did not resolve PFOA personal injury claims of plaintiffs who did not have cases or claims in the MDL or personal injury claims based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. Approximately 96 plaintiffs filed matters after the First MDL Settlement. In January 2021, EID and Chemours entered into settlement agreements with counsel representing these plaintiffs, providing for a settlement of all but one of the 96 then filed and pending cases, as well as additional pre-suit claims, under which those cases and claims of settling plaintiffs were resolved for approximately $83 (the “Second MDL Settlement”). Chemours contributed approximately $29, and DuPont and Corteva each contributed approximately $27 to the Second MDL Settlement.

The single matter not included in the Second MDL Settlement was a testicular cancer case tried in March 2020 to a verdict of $40 in compensatory and emotional distress damages and $10 in loss of consortium damages. The jury found that EID’s conduct did not warrant punitive damages. In March 2021, the trial court issued post-trial rulings which reduced the consortium damages to $0.25. The Company paid its share from the verdict in this matter in November 2023 after all of EID’s appeals process from United States Court of Appeals to the United States Supreme Court were denied.

In December 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML) declined to close the Ohio MDL. As of December 31, 2024, 45 plaintiffs purporting to be Leach class members have filed personal injury cases. Trial was scheduled to start in September 2024 for two plaintiffs, with a second trial scheduled to start in March 2025 for two plaintiffs. Prior to the start of the first trial in September, EID and Chemours entered into an agreement in principle with counsel representing MDL plaintiffs providing for settlement for all filed and pending cases in the MDL as well as additional pre-suit claims, under which those cases and claims of settling plaintiffs would be resolved and the MDL closed for $58.5, with Chemours contributing $29.25 and DuPont and Corteva contributing together contributing $29.25.  The parties finalized and executed the term sheet as of November 13, 2024 on terms consistent with the above-referenced agreement in principle. In December 2024, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to terminate the MDL. In February 2025, the court entered an order granting the motion and suggesting dissolution of the MDL to the JPML. In December 2024, the first payment under the term sheet became payable and Chemours paid its share of $14.75. Chemours expects its share of the final payment of $14.5 will become payable under the term sheet in 2025.

EID and Chemours have received governmental and regulatory inquiries and have been named in other litigations, including class actions, brought by individuals, municipalities, businesses, and water districts alleging exposure to and/or contamination from PFAS, including PFOA. Many actions include an allegation of fraudulent transfer in the spin-off that created Chemours. Chemours has declined EID’s requests for indemnity for fraudulent transfer claims.

Chemours has responded to letters and inquiries from governmental law enforcement entities regarding PFAS, including in January 2020, a letter informing it that the U.S. Department of Justice, Consumer Protection Branch, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are considering whether to open a criminal investigation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and asking that it retain its documents regarding PFAS and food contact applications. In July 2020, Chemours received a grand jury subpoena for documents. The Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or result of any potential governmental, criminal, or civil proceeding that may result, the imposition of fines and penalties, and/or other remedies. The Company is also unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any.

For information regarding the Company’s ongoing litigation and environmental remediation matters at Fayetteville, refer to “Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina” under the “Environmental Overview” within this “Note 22 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”.

Chemours does not manufacture or sell, and has never, manufactured nor sold aqueous film forming foam (“AFFF”). Numerous defendants, including EID and Chemours, have been named in approximately 5,900 matters, involving AFFF, which is used to extinguish hydrocarbon-based (i.e., Class B) fires and subject to U.S. military specifications. Most matters have been transferred to or filed directly into a multi-district litigation (“AFFF MDL”) in South Carolina federal court or identified by a party for transfer. The matters pending in the AFFF MDL allege damages as a result of contamination, in most cases due to migration from military installations or airports, or personal injury from exposure to AFFF. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for investigating, monitoring, remediating, treating, and otherwise responding to the contamination. Others have claims for personal injury, property diminution, and punitive damages.

In March 2021, ten water provider cases within the AFFF MDL were approved by the court for purposes of commencing initial discovery (Tier One discovery) and in October 2021, the court approved three of these cases for additional discovery (Tier Two discovery). In September 2022, a water provider action filed by the City of Stuart, Florida was selected for the first bellwether trial. The court encouraged all parties to discuss resolution of the water provider category of cases, and in October 2022 appointed a mediator to facilitate discussions among and between the parties. Chemours, Corteva/EID and DuPont, together, entered into U.S. public water system class action settlement agreement in June 2023, as further discussed below. Prior to the public water system class action suit settlement, in May 2023, the Plaintiffs filed, and the court granted, a motion to sever all claims against Chemours and EID from the first bellwether trial for the water provider cases. There are currently approximately 600 water provider cases in the AFFF MDL, of which approximately 40 such matters that had been filed as of the Settlement Agreement have submitted opt-outs per below discussion.

For non-water provider cases in the AFFF MDL (approximately 5,300), the parties are now proceeding with discovery in certain personal injury cases, with Tier One discovery completed in June 2024. In July 2024, the parties jointly submitted to the Court a list of proposed Group A and Group B plaintiffs for purposes of staggering Tier 2 discovery. Tier 2 expert discovery for Group A cases is being completed and Tier 2 discovery for Group 2 cases is to be completed in March 2025. An initial Tier 2 Group A trial date has been set for October 2025. Further, the Court has also established a case management process for reviewing and listing diseases claimed to be associated with exposure to an AFFF source as well a protocol for dismissing personal injury claims for unlisted diseases. Plaintiffs asserting these unlisted claims were required to dismiss their unlisted personal injury claims without prejudice by September 10, 2024 or produce medical records and expert reports on general and specific causation for the alleged disease.

There are other AFFF lawsuits pending outside the AFFF MDL that have not been designated by a party for inclusion in the MDL. These matters identifying EID and/or Chemours as a defendant are:

Valero Refining (“Valero”) has five pending state court lawsuits filed commencing in June 2019 regarding its Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, California, and Louisiana facilities. These lawsuits allege that several defendants that designed, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold AFFF or PFAS incorporated into AFFF have caused Valero to incur damages and costs including remediation, AFFF disposal, and replacement. Valero also alleges fraudulent transfer.

In New York state court, four individuals filed a lawsuit in September 2019 against numerous defendants including Chemours. The lawsuit alleges personal injury resulting from exposure to AFFF in Long Island drinking water and violation of New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and medical monitoring.

In Illinois, a lawsuit was filed in May 2022 in the state court against numerous defendants, including EID. The lawsuit alleges personal injury from occupational exposure, including from AFFF-related materials/products, and seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages. In July 2023, an agreement to resolve the lawsuit was reached. This matter is now closed. Since February 2023, two other lawsuits have been filed in Illinois state court against numerous defendants, including EID, which also allege personal injury from occupational exposure, including from AFFF-related materials/products, and seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages. Chemours is not a named defendant in either of these lawsuits.

In Ontario, Canada, three lawsuits were filed by two parties in December 2022 against DuPont de Nemours, Inc. and another defendant, seeking contribution and indemnification, interest, and costs in connection with three underlying actions filed by property owners in Canada, and a related third-party action filed by some defendants in one of the matters. The plaintiffs in the underlying actions allege PFAS contamination of their respective properties from the use of firefighting foam. Chemours is not a named defendant in any of these matters but has agreed to defend pursuant to the MOU. These lawsuits against DuPont were noticed for discontinuance by two of the filing parties.

In July 2024, a civil claim was filed in Virginia state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, alleging that plaintiff was exposed to PFAS substances through products that defendants manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, supplied, or distributed, such as turn out gear and AFFF. Plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages. Chemours has not yet been served in this matter.

In September 2024, a matter was filed in New Jersey state court against EIDP, DuPont de Nemours, Chemours and other defendants alleging personal injury due to exposure to AFFF-related PFAS in drinking water.

In British Columbia, Canada, a civil claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in December 2023 against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as individuals with certain diagnosed conditions after using or being exposed to AFFF containing PFAS under certain conditions and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Also in the British Columbia court, in June 2024, a civil claim was filed by His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as all provincial and territorial governments that have incurred expenditures relating to alleged PFAS contamination, including from AFFF, of its water resources as well as municipalities, regional districts, and other governance authorities and persons responsible for drinking water systems. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In July 2024, a civil claim was filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as all natural and legal persons in Quebec who own, operate, or supply water through a drinking water disbursement system intended for human consumption, and whose water source is located near sites where PFAS and PFAS-containing products, such as AFFF, were allegedly manufactured, used, transported, processed or sold by defendants. The claim seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In August 2024, a claim was filed in the Manitoba Court of King's Bench (Winnipeg Centre) by the Muskoday First Nation against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as Indian Bands as defined under Canadian law. Plaintiff alleges that “any water, fish, and game they obtain from the reserve is contaminated with PFAS” by PFAS and PFAS-containing products, such as AFFF, that were allegedly manufactured, used, transported, processed, or sold by defendants near their water sources. The claim seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In August 2024, a civil claim was filed in the Superior Court of Ontario against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as all persons in Canada who own property with a well and whose well contains PFAS. Plaintiff alleges that their well as the wells of class members were contaminated by PFAS and PFAS-containing products, such as AFFF, that were allegedly manufactured, used, transported, processed, or sold by defendants near their water sources. The claim seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In September 2024, a civil claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Canada against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as all persons in Canada who currently own property with a well, and whose well water contains PFAS. Plaintiff alleges that their well, and the wells of class members, were contaminated by PFAS and PFAS-containing products, such as AFFF, that were allegedly manufactured, used, transported, processed, or sold by defendants near their water sources. The claim seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

United States Public Water System Class Action Suit Settlement and Related Opt-Outs

On June 1, 2023, Chemours, Corteva/EID, and DuPont, together, entered into a binding agreement in principle to comprehensively resolve all drinking water claims related to PFAS of a defined class of U.S. public water systems that serve the vast majority of the United States population arising out of the AFFF MDL, that was finalized by a definitive agreement on June 30, 2023 (the "Settlement Agreement"), subject to approval by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (the “Court”). A preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Court was granted on August 22, 2023.

Under the Settlement Agreement, Chemours, Corteva and DuPont collectively established and contributed a total of $1,185 to a qualified settlement fund (“Water District Settlement Fund”). Contribution rates were consistent with the MOU, with Chemours (together with its subsidiaries) contributing 50%, and DuPont and Corteva collectively (together with their subsidiaries) contributing the remaining 50%. The settlement amounts were funded in full and deposited into the Water District Settlement Fund. On September 6, 2023, Chemours deposited $592 into the Water District Settlement Fund, which was recognized as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents on its consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2023. In exchange for the payment to the Water District Settlement Fund, Chemours, Corteva and DuPont (together with their subsidiaries) will receive a release of the claims from the Class (as defined below), upon entry into final judgment by the Court in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The agreement was entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or fault by Chemours or the other parties.

The class represented in the Settlement Agreement is composed of all Public Water Systems, as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 300f, with a current detection of PFAS or that are currently required to monitor for PFAS under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule or other applicable federal or state law (the “Class”). The following systems are excluded from the settlement class: water systems owned and operated by a State or the United States government; small systems that have not detected the presence of PFAS and are not currently required to monitor for it under federal or state requirements; and water systems in the lower Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina (which are included only if they so request). PFAS, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, includes PFOA and HFPO-DA among a broad range of fluorinated organic substances. While it is reasonably possible that the excluded systems or claims could result in additional future lawsuits, claims, assessments or proceedings, it is not possible to predict the outcome of any such matters, and as such, the Company is unable to develop an estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any, at this time.

The Settlement Agreement does not resolve claims of Public Water Systems that are not included in the settlement as described above, or of Public Water Systems that requested exclusion from the Class (“opt out”) pursuant to the process established by the Court. It also does not resolve potential future claims of Public Water Systems that have not detected and do not detect any PFAS contamination, but where such contamination first occurs in the future. The Settlement Agreement also does not resolve certain claims not related to drinking water, such as certain specified separate alleged claims relating to stormwater or wastewater treatment, or other alleged types of claims such as for personal injury or for natural resource damages claimed by state attorneys general, that remain outstanding in the AFFF MDL or other courts. Matters related to claims from other public water systems, state natural resources damages and other PFAS matters are further described below.

As part of the preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement in August 2023, notice of the Settlement Agreement has been provided to class members and such members had until November 11, 2023 to object to the settlement or December 4, 2023 to submit a request for exclusion, indicating they wish to opt-out of the settlement class. A Final Fairness Hearing on the Settlement Agreement occurred on December 14, 2023.

On January 3, 2024, the Court-appointed Notice Administrator for the settlement submitted a declaration regarding objections to the settlement and opt-outs, and on February 6, 2024, it submitted an updated report to the Court regarding its further review of the submitted opt-outs. The Notice Administrator identified that, based on his then February 2024 review as done in accordance with the Court's guidance, opt-outs had been received from approximately 1,000 of the 14,167 listed potential Class members. In addition to those opt-outs, the Notice Administrator stated that he also received requests for exclusion from approximately 300 additional entities that were not on the list of Class members. The Court issued an order providing that the deadline for entities to withdraw a previously submitted opt-out was March 1, 2024, which was subsequently extended to March 15, 2024 by the Court. The Notice Administrator’s determinations are not dispositive of the validity of opt-outs, which may be subject to judicial review and the Notice Administrator also continues to review the opt-outs for whether they were proper or duplicative.

Chemours, Corteva and DuPont deny the allegations in the underlying litigation and reserve all legal and factual defenses against such claims if they were litigated to conclusion. On February 8, 2024, the Court issued an opinion and order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the settlement, and on February 26, 2024, the Court entered a final order and judgment. On March 11, 2024, one public water system filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s judgment, and such appeal was dismissed in April 2024. No additional appeals were filed during the appeal period, and accordingly the court's approval is a final judgment in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The Settling Defendants confirmed to the escrow agent in May 2024 that the Effective Date has occurred under the Settlement Agreement and Chemours no longer maintains its reversionary interest to the underlying restricted funds within the Water District Settlement Fund.

With respect to the submitted opt-outs, for those entities that have filed claims and/or lawsuit against numerous defendants, including Chemours, EID, Corteva, DuPont, either prior or subsequent to the Settlement Agreement, approximately 40 of such opt-out entities are in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina Multi-district litigation and approximately 90 of such opt-out entities are named plaintiffs in other various federal, state or local courts (see Other Public Water System Matters below). The Company’s assessment of its potential liability with respect to the opt-outs considers numerous factors, many of which are not yet determinable. Many of these lawsuits and claims involve highly complex issues related to causation, scientific evidence and alleged actual damages and other substantial uncertainties.

Other than a single opt-out matter, for which the Company is engaged in discussions with the opt-out entity and maintains an immaterial accrual, the Company has not accrued for any potential losses with respect to the opt-out population as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, as such losses are not probable or estimable. Additional future lawsuits, claims, assessments or proceedings, including for those identified in the Other Public Water Systems Matters below, could be brought or maintained either by entities that submitted opt-outs, or by entities asserting claims that are expressly excluded from the releases in the Settlement Agreement. However, it is not possible to predict the outcome of any such matter due to various reasons including, among others, legal and factual defenses against such claims including factors noted above, timing when such claims could be resolved in court, and the number of defendants in any of those claims. While management believes that it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses related to the matters, which could be material to the results of operations, financial position, or cash flows, the Company is unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any, at this time.

In addition to the matters described in the AFFF MDL, as well as the matters described in "Litigation and Other matters related to Fayetteville” within this “Note 22 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”, other public water systems have filed lawsuits against Chemours, Corteva/EID, and DuPont including the following:

In New York federal court, 23 Long Island water suppliers that have filed lawsuits since August 2019 against several defendants including EID and Chemours alleging PFAS, PFOA, and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”) contamination through releases from industrial and manufacturing facilities and business locations where PFAS-contaminated water was used for irrigation and sites where consumer products were disposed. Claims vary between matters but include claims of personal injury alleging various disease conditions, product liability, negligence, nuisance, trespass and fraudulent transfer. All matters are seeking compensatory and punitive damages and, in certain cases, medical monitoring, declaratory and/or injunctive relief. In January 2022, Chemours filed a third-party claim for indemnity in connection with one of the Long Island water supplier matters. One of the water suppliers filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement.

The Town of Petersburgh in New York also filed suit in New York state court in August 2022 alleging defendants 3M, EID, and other defendants, are responsible for PFOA contamination of its municipal drinking water supply. The complaint alleges product liability claims, negligence, and trespass. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. In May 2024, the case was dismissed by stipulation in connection with the Public Water System Class Action Settlement, and the matter is now closed.

In New York and New Jersey federal courts, lawsuits were filed by Suez Water in December 2020 against several defendants, including EID and Chemours, alleging damages from PFAS releases into the environment, including PFOA and PFOS, that impacted water sources that the utilities use to provide water, as well as products liability, negligence, nuisance, and trespass. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in both matters. The motion was denied in the Suez Water New Jersey lawsuit in October 2021. In January 2022, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Suez New York lawsuit without prejudice and the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in February 2022. Following the filing of the second amended complaint in the Suez New York lawsuit, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In March 2023, the court granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, dismissing all claims against Chemours with prejudice, and finding a claim for design defect could be maintained against EID. Suez filed to opt out these matters from the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. In March 2024, the stays in these matters were lifted and discovery is proceeding.

In Georgia and Alabama courts, lawsuits were filed beginning in 2017 against numerous carpet manufacturers, certain municipal defendants, and suppliers and former suppliers, including EID and Chemours. The lawsuits include a matter filed by the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama alleging negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into a river leading to the town’s water source. The Town of Centre filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement, and this matter is expected to proceed to trial in March 2025.

Also, in Alabama, a purported class action was filed in July 2022 in Alabama federal court by the Utilities Board of Tuskegee on behalf of certain drinking water utilities against 3M, EID, Corteva and the Company alleging contamination of drinking water. The complaints allege negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance and trespass. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. In April 2023, Shelby County, Alabama and Talladega County, Alabama, filed suit in Alabama state court against numerous carpet manufacturers located near Dalton Georgia, suppliers, EID, Chemours, and other defendants to be named later. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance and trespass in the release by the carpet mills of PFAS compounds, including PFOA, into the water sources used by the Counties to provide drinking water. The Counties seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief to remove PFAS from the water supply and prevent alleged ongoing contamination. In May 2023, the matter was removed to federal court and later remanded to state court. In August 2023, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden, Alabama also filed suit in Alabama state court against the Company, DuPont, Corteva and other suppliers to carpet mills in Dalton Georgia, as well as against various landfill and waste companies. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the release of PFAS compounds, including PFOA, reaching the town’s water source. Gadsden seeks compensatory damages as well as expenses, potential lost profits, punitive damages and injunctive release. These matters were stayed in September 2023 pending final approval of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. Shelby County, Talladega County, City of Gadsden and the Utilities Board of Tuskegee as well as other water utilities that may be within the class, filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement and the matters are now proceeding. In November 2024, the Court dismissed the Utilities Board of Tuskegee matter without prejudice. Also in November 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court accepted Defendants’ mandamus petition seeking a writ to dismiss the Gadsden case on the grounds that all injuries have been redressed and that the claims are time barred. The ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court is pending.

In March 2024, the Municipal Utilities Board of the City of Albertville, Alabama filed suit in Alabama state court against certain defendants, including Chemours and EID. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass and seeks compensatory damages, real property damages, as well as past and future expenses, potential lost profits, and punitive damages. The plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief. Albertville filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement.

In April 2024, the Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners of the City of Mobile, Alabama filed suit in Alabama state court against certain defendants, including Chemours, DuPont and Corteva. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass and wantonness through disposal of construction materials made with PFAS allegedly supplied by defendants, to the local landfill, which allegedly resulted in the release of PFAS compounds reaching the town’s water source. Mobile seeks compensatory damages as well as expenses, potential lost profits, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Mobile also seeks an injunction requiring defendants to remove PFAS from the water supply. Mobile filed to opt out of the Public Water Class Action Settlement. In October 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim as well as lack of standing.

In Georgia, a lawsuit was filed by the City of Rome against numerous carpet manufacturers, certain municipal defendants, and suppliers and former suppliers, including EID and Chemours, alleging negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into a river leading to the town’s water source. In June 2023, Chemours, DuPont and Corteva entered into a confidential settlement with the City of Rome and its claims against these parties related to this matter have been released and the matter dismissed. The Company recorded the related settlement amount in selling, general and administrative expense in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2023.

In Georgia, a putative class action was filed in 2019 on behalf of customers of the Rome, Georgia water division and the Floyd County, Georgia water department against the City of Dalton, Georgia, numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia, Chemours and EID, alleging negligence, nuisance and other claims related to the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into a river leading to their water sources (“Rome ratepayer matter”). In November 2022, EID and Chemours were added as defendants in a purported class action filed on behalf of residents of Summerville, Georgia and Chattooga County, Georgia in Federal Court (“Summerville ratepayer matter”). Plaintiffs seek various statutory violations as well as negligence and nuisance and seek remedies, injunctive relief, personal injury and property damages, as well as punitive damages. These matters are pending in court. Floyd County, City of Rome and Summerville filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. In December 2024, the court in the Rome ratepayer matter ruled that the putative class did not have standing to seek injunctive relief and granted summary judgment for Defendants on that count. The court has stayed rulings on the pending motions in this matter to allow the parties to mediate the remaining claims for alleged damages related to rate increases during the first half of 2025.

Additionally in Georgia state court, in January 2024, certain landowners of property in Gordon County, Georgia, filed suit against the City of Calhoun, numerous carpet manufacturers operating in Calhoun, and carpet mill suppliers, including 3M, EID and Chemours. The complaint alleges that the carpet manufacturers sent PFAS containing wastewater to the Calhoun Water Pollution Control Plant for many years. It further alleges Calhoun spread the treated sludge containing PFAS from the Calhoun Water Pollution Control Plant on plaintiffs' land until 2023. Plaintiffs allege negligence and nuisance, and seek compensatory damages, including diminution of property value, and punitive damages, as well as an injunctive order to remediate the property. Calhoun filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. In May 2024, a separate lawsuit was filed in Georgia state court on behalf of multiple plaintiffs located in Calhoun, Georgia, alleging that defendants, including Chemours and EID, manufacture chemicals used in carpet manufacturing processes which have been discharged in wastewater to the Calhoun Water Pollution Control Plant. Plaintiffs allege and seek damages for PFAS contamination of their properties due to sewage sludge dumped in close proximity to their properties by Defendant City of Calhoun. The lawsuit alleges negligence, failure to warn, nuisance, wanton conduct and punitive damages, public nuisance, abatement of public nuisance, and trespass. The Defendant City of Calhoun filed cross claims against numerous carpet manufacturers, and carpet mill suppliers, including EID and Chemours in both of these actions. The cross claims allege that the carpet manufacturers and suppliers knew PFAS containing wastewater sent to the Calhoun Water Pollution Control Plant and would not be removed by Calhoun’s treatment systems. The City of Calhoun alleges negligence, nuisance, and statutory violations. Calhoun seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief ordering abatement, remediation, and attorneys’ fees. Chemours and EID moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims as well as the City of Calhoun's cross claims in the actions. In October 2024, the Court denied the motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims but dismissed the City of Calhoun’s crossclaims.

In June 2024, the City of Columbia, South Carolina (“City of Columbia”) filed suit in South Carolina state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, EID, and DuPont De Nemours, who are alleged to be responsible for the release of PFAS into the City of Columbia’s water supply as suppliers to the metal finishing, paper finishing, plastics coating, textile, and aerospace industries. The complaint alleges that a variety of industrial operations have discharged PFAS into the Broad River and the Saluda River, which are the source of the City of Columbia’s drinking water, and that PFAS have been detected at high levels in these rivers and in Lake Murray (a Saluda River impoundment). The City of Columbia seeks compensatory and punitive damages. In January 2025, the Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission (“Joint Municipal”), Saluda County Water and Sewer Authority (“Saluda County”), and the Town of Lexington, South Carolina (“Lexington”), all of which also rely upon Lake Murray as a source of drinking water, also filed suit in South Carolina state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, EIDP, and DuPont De Nemours, regarding alleged discharges and seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The City of Columbia, Joint Municipal, Saluda County and Lexington each filed to opt out of the Public Water Class Action Settlement.

In July 2024, the Town of Lyerly, Georgia (“Lyerly”) filed suit in Georgia state court against multiple defendants, who are alleged to be responsible for the release of PFAS to the water supply from carpet mill operations or as suppliers to those carpet mills. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass and regulatory violations. Lyerly seeks compensatory damages for past and future expenses as well punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. Lyerly has filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement.

In July 2024, the Town of Pine Hill, Alabama (“Pine Hill”) filed suit in Alabama state court against multiple defendants, including, the Company, DuPont, and Corteva, who are alleged to be responsible for the release of PFAS to the water supply through paper mill operations or as suppliers to paper mills. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, wantonness and punitive damages. Pine Hill seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages for property damages, potential lost profits and past and future expense as well punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The Town of Pine Hill has filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement.

In August 2024, the City of Irondale, Alabama (“Irondale”) filed a lawsuit in Alabama state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have manufactured, supplied, and/or sold products containing PFAS that have contaminated plaintiff's water systems. Irondale disclaims any claims or causes of actions relating to AFFF and has opted out of the Public Drinking Water Settlement

In January 2025, Berkeley County, South Carolina (“Berkeley”) filed suit in South Carolina state court against several defendants, including Chemours. Berkeley alleges that defendants have manufactured, sold, used, and/or caused discharge of PFAS into the Lake Moultrie and Lake Marion, which Berkeley uses for its drinking water intake through a water supply contract with South Carolina Public Service Authority. Berkeley disclaims any claims or causes of actions relating to AFFF and has opted out of the Public Drinking Water Settlement. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In January 2025, the Town of Whitmire, South Carolina (“Whitmire”) filed suit in South Carolina state court filed suit in South state court against several defendants, including Chemours. Whitmire alleges that defendants have manufactured, sold, used, and/or caused discharge of PFAS into the Enoree River, which Whitmire uses for its drinking water intake. Whitmire disclaims any claims or causes of actions relating to AFFF and has opted out of the Public Drinking Water Settlement. The complaint seeks damages.

In January 2025, the Town of Cheraw, South Carolina (“Cheraw”) filed suit in South Carolina state court against several defendants, including Chemours. Cheraw alleges that defendants discharged PFAS-containing wastewater and land-applied sludge that have contaminated Cheraw’s drinking water systems. Cheraw disclaims any claims or causes of actions relating to AFFF and has opted out of the Public Drinking Water Settlement. The complaint seeks damages.

In January 2025, the City of Georgetown, South Carolina (“Georgetown”) filed suit in South state court against several defendants, including Chemours. Georgetown alleges that defendants have discharged PFAS that have contaminated Georgetown’s drinking water and cannot be removed by Georgetown’s legacy water treatment technology. Georgetown disclaims any claims or causes of actions relating to AFFF and has opted out of the Public Drinking Water Settlement. The complaint seeks damages.

In January 2025, Georgetown County Water and Sewer District (“GCWSD”) filed suit in South state court against several defendants, including Chemours. GCWSD alleges that defendants have manufactured, sold, used, and/or caused discharge of PFAS into the Waccamaw River, which GCWSD uses for its drinking water intake. GCWSD further alleges that its current legacy water treatment technology is unable to remove PFAS from source water. GCWSD disclaims any claims or causes of actions relating to AFFF and has opted out of the Public Drinking Water Settlement. The complaint seeks damages.

In addition to the State of New Jersey actions (as detailed below), a majority of the states and certain territories of the U.S., have filed lawsuits or are investigating claims against various defendants, including EID and Chemours, relating to the alleged contamination of state natural resources with PFAS compounds either from AFFF and/or other sources. These lawsuits seek damages including costs to investigate, clean up, restore, treat, monitor, or otherwise respond to contamination of natural resources and some include counts for fraudulent transfer. Chemours, Corteva/EID and DuPont, together under the MOU, are engaged with States and their counsel on certain of these cases. It is reasonably possible that these discussions could result in a loss, which could be material; however, at this time, the Company is unable to predict the duration, scope, or result of such discussions, and because of these uncertainties, the Company is also unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any.

In February 2018, the State of Ohio initiated litigation against EID regarding historical PFOA emissions from the Washington Works site. Chemours is an additional named defendant. Ohio alleges damage to natural resources and fraudulent transfer in the spin-off that created Chemours and seeks damages including remediation and other costs and punitive damages. On November 28, 2023, Chemours, DuPont, Corteva, and EID entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Ohio to settle claims, including environmental releases or sales of products containing PFAS or other known contaminants. Under the agreement, Chemours will pay $55 to the State of Ohio, which shall be used to support environmental restoration. Chemours contribution is consistent with the 50% contribution rate under the MOU. This amount is included in Accrued Litigation and expected to be paid in 2025.

On July 13, 2021, Chemours, DuPont, Corteva, and EID entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Delaware to settle such potential claims, including for environmental releases or sales of products containing PFAS or other known contaminants. Under the agreement, in January 2022, the companies paid a total amount of $50 to the State of Delaware, which shall be utilized to fund a Natural Resources and Sustainability Trust (the “Trust”) to be used for environmental restoration and enhancement of resources, sampling and analysis, community environmental justice and equity grants, and other natural resource needs. Chemours contributed $25 to the settlement and the remaining $25 was divided between DuPont and Corteva which shall be treated as Qualified Spend under the MOU. If the companies enter into a proportionally similar agreement to settle or resolve claims of another state for PFAS-related natural resource damages, for an amount greater than $50, the companies may be required to make one or more supplemental payment(s) directly to the Trust, with such payment(s) not to exceed $25 in the aggregate. Following entry of the settlement agreement with the State of Ohio and its payment and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement with the State of Delaware, the Companies will make a supplemental payment directly to the Trust in an amount equal to $25 in the aggregate. Chemours’ share of such supplemental payment is approximately $13, which is included in Accrued Litigation and expected to be paid in the 2025.

In December 2024, the State of Texas filed a Deceptive Trade Practices action in federal court against 3M Company, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (EID), DuPont de Nemours, Inc. (DuPont) and Corteva alleging that the companies engaged in deceptive trade practices by failing to disclose certain health risks and environmental harm related to PFAS. The lawsuit alleges that the EID defendants’ corporate restructurings were designed to avoid liability for these actions. The suit seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties. In January 2025 the case was removed to federal court.

In New York courts, EID has been named in approximately 40 lawsuits beginning in 2017, which are not part of the Leach class, brought by individual plaintiffs alleging negligence and other claims in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into drinking water against current and former owners and suppliers of a manufacturing facility in Hoosick Falls, New York. Two additional lawsuits have been filed by a business seeking to recover its losses and by nearby property owners and residents in a putative class action. The lawsuit filed by the business was dismissed, but the claims by the individual business owner were allowed to proceed. In September 2022, the Court certified the class action, and EID filed a petition for review of the certification, which was denied in January 2023. Chemours and EID, entered into settlement agreements in principle to resolve all but seven of the pending lawsuits, including the class action suit, during the second quarter of 2023 and were substantially paid in the fourth quarter of 2023. In February 2024, the Company agreed to resolve all of the remaining individual cases and claims, including six of the seven pending lawsuits for $0.4. As of September 2024, these settlements have all been paid consistent with prior reserves in the matters. Upon completion and dismissal of the individual matters, the class action is the sole remaining lawsuit pending for these matters. In December 2024, the court scheduled the class action trial for July 2025.

In New Jersey federal court, lawsuits were filed against several defendants including EID and Chemours beginning in November 2019. The lawsuits include ten lawsuits alleging that defendants are responsible for PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS, in groundwater and drinking water. During the second quarter of 2023, the companies resolved these claims. Eight lawsuits were also filed alleging exposure to PFAS and other chemicals, including two lawsuits by parents on behalf of their adult children claiming pre-natal exposure, resulted in the children’s cognitive delays, neurological, genetic, and autoimmune conditions. Further, eleven additional lawsuits were filed in state court with similar allegations of personal injury, which have been removed to New Jersey federal court (and one of which was transferred to the AFFF MDL). In May 2024, a case alleging wrongful death from exposure to PFAS and other chemicals on behalf of two deceased residents of Salem County, NJ was filed naming Chemours in New Jersey state court. The case has also been removed to federal court. Plaintiffs seek certain damages including punitive damages.

In January 2025, several state court lawsuits were filed against multiple defendants, including DuPont defendants and Chemours, alleging personal injury, trespass and property damage claims primarily related to exposure to PFAS via groundwater. In New Jersey state court, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of fifteen plaintiffs who reside in the state; in New York state court the lawsuit is on behalf of thirty plaintiffs who reside in the state; in Illinois state court the lawsuit is on behalf of twenty four plaintiffs who reside in the state; and in Delaware state court three lawsuits were filed on behalf of approximately 250 plaintiffs who reside in the state. The complaints also allege fraudulent conveyance as to DuPont defendants and Chemours and demand compensatory and punitive damages.

In Ohio federal court, a putative class action ("Hardwick") was filed in October 2018 against several defendants including 3M, EID and Chemours seeking class action status for U.S. residents having a detectable level of PFAS in their blood serum. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including the establishment of a “PFAS Science Panel”. In March 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s class certification and certified a class covering anyone subject to Ohio laws having minimal levels of PFOA plus at least one other PFAS in their blood. The court requested further briefing on whether the class should be extended to include other states that recognize the claims for relief filed in the action. The defendants, including EID and Chemours, jointly filed a petition to appeal the class certification decision and in September 2022 the petition was granted. During the fourth quarter of 2023, the Court dismissed the class action against 3M, EID, Chemours and the other defendants. In December, 2023, the plaintiff filed a petition for reconsideration and for rehearing en banc with the 6th Circuit. In January 2024, the 6th Circuit denied the request for rehearing. In March 2024, the case was dismissed. In June 2024, Hardwick refiled a putative national class action in federal court in Ohio against 3M, DuPont, and the Company. The refiled Hardwick suit seeks class status for all those in the United States who have 2 ppb or more of “C8 (PFOA and PFOS combined)” in their blood and who are subject to the laws of a state that recognizes medical monitoring. The complaint alleges negligence, battery and conspiracy and seeks equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief including medical monitoring overseen by a court-appointed independent science panel. The complaint does not seek monetary damages or personal injury. In October 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the matter.

In Delaware state court, a putative class action was filed in May 2019 against two electroplating companies, 3M and EID, and two other defendants added in an amended complaint, alleging responsibility for PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS, in drinking water and the environment in the nearby community. In November 2023, a motion to amend the complaint was filed seeking to add Chemours as a defendant. The putative class of residents alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, and other claims and seeks medical monitoring, personal injury and property damages, and punitive damages. The matter has been removed to federal court. In January 2025, the federal magistrate recommended that summary judgment be entered in favor of EID and two other defendants based on lack of any record connecting the PFAS contamination alleged with products sold by these defendants. After an objection period, the court may accept the magistrate’s recommendation and enter summary judgment.

In South Carolina, a putative class action was filed in March 2022 in the state court against 3M, EID and the Company alleging PFAS contamination from a former textile plant located in Society Hill, South Carolina which allegedly used PFAS containing textile treatment chemicals supplied by the defendants. The lawsuit alleges negligence, trespass, strict liability and nuisance and seeks monetary damages, including property diminution, and injunctive relief, including water treatment and remediation, as well as punitive damages. The matter has been removed to federal court. In April 2024, EID and Chemours filed a third-party complaint against Huntsman, Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Galey & Lord, Nanotex and John Does alleging indemnification and contribution. In September 2024, Huntsman filed a counterclaim against EID and Chemours alleging indemnification and contribution. In August 2024, a complaint related to the same fabric mill was filed on behalf of an individual in South Carolina state court against 3M, EID, Chemours and other companies alleging personal injuries resulting from exposure to PFAS emissions from the former textile plant. The complaint alleged negligence, strict liability, products liability counts, and fraud and seek compensatory and punitive damages and costs. In August 2024, 3M removed the matter to federal court.

In Maine, a previously filed lawsuit in federal court by individuals against various paper mills owners in Maine was amended in October 2022 to add various alleged suppliers to the paper mills as defendants, including EID. The lawsuit alleges PFAS chemicals were used in making paper products at the mills and that discharges, waste disposal and the selling of byproducts from paper mills caused property damages as well as personal injury to the plaintiffs. The lawsuit alleges various claims against the mills; alleges negligence, strict liability and nuisance against the supplier defendants; and seeks monetary damages. In March 2023, plaintiffs dismissed the case against EID and other defendants.

In Pennsylvania, in December 2023, a lawsuit was filed in state court on behalf of multiple plaintiffs alleging that defendants including Chemours, EID, Corteva and DuPont, as manufacturers of chemicals used in gas well fracking, are responsible for contamination of the water supply. The lawsuit alleges negligence, personal injury, medical monitoring, property damage and punitive damages. In May 2024, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and did not name Chemours, EID, Corteva or DuPont de Nemours.

In Delaware, in October 2023, a lawsuit was filed in state court on behalf of the spouse of a former EID employee, naming Chemours, EID, Corteva, DuPont and others alleging personal injury as a result of take-home exposure to PFAS and other compounds. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages. In January 2025, this matter was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

In Missouri, in April 2024, a putative class action was filed in federal court against several defendants including 3M, EID, Corteva, DuPont, and Chemours alleging responsibility for PFAS contamination in drinking water and the environment in Portageville, Missouri. The putative class of residents alleges negligence, nuisance and strict liability. The complaint also alleges personal injury and property damages and seeks medical monitoring, abatement and compensatory and punitive damages. In August 2024, the case was dismissed against EID and Chemours for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In April 2024, three defendants in a 2022 Massachusetts federal court putative class action alleging PFAS contamination and related in part to the Massachusetts Natural Fertilizer Company Site, The Newark Group, Seaman Paper Company and Otter Farm, Inc., filed cross claims against the Company, DuPont, Corteva, EID and other defendants, including John Doe defendants, for the sole purpose of pleading and protecting any claims for indemnity or contribution they may have against the cross claim defendants, if they are found liable in the underlying putative class action. In October 2024, the Court disallowed the cross claims which ends the matter as to the Company. In December 2024, The Newark Group moved for the court to reconsider its denial of the cross claims against the Company and others and argues that the Court misapplied the law on timeliness and proper joinder.

In May 2024, a lawsuit was filed in Missouri federal court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have manufactured, supplied, and/or sold products containing PFAS that have contaminated the soil, groundwater, aquifer, and drinking water for plaintiffs’ properties in and near Canton, Missouri. The complaint seeks certification on behalf of plaintiffs and others similarly situated whose properties were allegedly damages by contaminants produced by defendants. Plaintiffs seek a medical monitoring class as well. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. This case has been transferred to the AFFF MDL.

In June 2024, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut federal court on behalf of multiple firefighter unions and individual firefighters against multiple defendants, including Chemours, EID, and DuPont De Nemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. Plaintiffs allege that defendants manufactured, sold, or supplied chemicals containing PFAS which was allegedly found in turnout gear. Plaintiffs allege strict liability, negligence, failure to warn, negligent design and manufacture, medical monitoring, and statutory punitive damages.

In September 2024, a civil claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Canada against multiple defendants, including Chemours, seeking to certify the action as a class proceeding. The complaint identifies the class as all resident persons or entities in Canada who purchased carpeting treated with PFAS-containing products through a retailer or distributor before January 1, 2020 and had it installed in a building still owned by such persons or entities and who have not removed the carpeting. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In September 2023, a civil claim was filed in Virginia state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, alleging breach of implied warranties, breach of express warranties, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and willful and wanton misconduct. Plaintiff alleges that defendants manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, supplied, or distributed PFAS, PFAS containing chemical feedstock, and PFAS-containing turnouts to firefighting training facilities and fire departments nationally, including Virginia where plaintiff’s husband was a firefighter. Plaintiff alleges that repeated and extensive exposure to PFAS resulted in her husband’s brain cancer. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In April 2024, a civil claim was filed in Virginia state court against multiple defendants, including Chemours, alleging breach of implied warranties, breach of express warranties, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and willful and wanton misconduct. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, supplied, or distributed PFAS, PFAS containing chemical feedstock, and PFAS-containing turnouts to firefighting training facilities and fire departments nationally, including Virginia. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In August 2024, a putative national class action was filed in federal court in Minnesota against 3M, EIDP and Chemours related to PFAS in carpet. Violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) are alleged as well as violations of over 30 state statutes, including consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, misrepresentation, and unfair competition laws. The complaint also includes product liability and nuisance claims. EIDP and Chemours filed a motion to dismiss.

In November 2024, Aladdin Manufacturing Corporation, Mohawk Industries, Inc. and Mohawk Carpet, LLC (hereinafter “Mohawk”), which are carpet manufacturers with operations in Georgia, sued carpet treatment chemical suppliers 3M, EIDP (“DuPont”), Daikin and the Company in Georgia state court alleging fraud, misrepresentation, contractual and common law indemnity, negligence, nuisance, punitive damages and other claims related to future and past PFAS liabilities and attorney’s fees incurred by Mohawk. Mohawk alleges concealment and misrepresentation by the suppliers related to PFAS and the carpet treatment chemicals supplied. Mohawk further claims that it has been named as a defendant in at least 8 lawsuits brought by water suppliers downstream of its carpet manufacturing operations and has already paid over $100 in settlements of some of those matters. Mohawk seeks a declaratory judgment holding the suppliers responsible for its PFAS liabilities, including damages to Mohawk’s property interests, past, present, and future compensatory damages, including settlements already paid, attorneys’ fees and punitive damages.

In December 2024, the City of Dalton, Georgia, acting through its Board of Water, Light and Sinking Fund Commissioners, d/b/a Dalton Utilities (hereinafter “Dalton”) sued 3M, EIDP (“DuPont”), Daikin, INV Performance Surfaces, Aladdin Manufacturing, Shaw Industries, unnamed DOES and the Company in federal court in Georgia. Dalton has received and treated waste from carpet and flooring manufacturers since the 1970s and alleges that Defendants have caused long-running contamination of Dalton’s wastewater treatment operations through the sale, use and disposal of PFAS. Dalton’s operations include Riverbend Land Application System (“LAS”) where treated wastewater is land-applied, as well as three wastewater treatment plants (collectively, the “POTW”). Dalton alleges that the Defendants sold and used PFAS containing carpet treatment chemicals while knowing the PFAS would not be removed by the POTW. Dalton further alleges that Defendants did not provide disclosures or warnings to Dalton or the public. CERCLA is asserted as the basis for cost recovery and for a declaration of Defendants’ joint and several liability for past and future response costs by the POTW and abatement of PFAS. Dalton also alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, strict liability and violations of various state statutes and seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

In December 2024, Murray County, Georgia sued 3M, Daikin, Invista, Shaw, Aladdin, Mohawk, INV Performance Surfaces, EIDP, Corteva and the Company in Georgia state court alleging PFAS contamination from disposal of carpet manufacturing wastes into its landfills. Murray County asserts Georgia statutory violations as well as common law torts, including negligence and nuisance, and seeks damages arising from PFAS contamination of its property. Murray County also seeks punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

In January 2025, Catoosa County, Georgia sued 3M, Daikin, Shaw, Aladdin, Mohawk, and EIDP in Georgia state court alleging PFAS related to carpet manufacturing was manufactured, used, and discharged by Defendants and exists at dangerous levels in its landfill, and in its surface water, leachate, groundwater, and methane gas. Catoosa County asserts Georgia statutory violations as well as common law torts, including negligence and nuisance, and seeks past and future compensatory and statutory damages for remediation, abatement, interference with use and enjoyment of property, and diminished property values. Catoosa County also seeks punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

In January 2025, James and Pamela Stephens filed a lawsuit in Georgia state court against the City of Calhoun, 3M, INV Performance Surfaces, Daikin, Arrowstar, Aladdin, Mohawk, Shaw, Milliken, Mannington Mills, Dixie Group, Marquis Industries, EIDP and the Company. Plaintiffs assert that PFAS containing waste from defendant carpet manufacturers and suppliers was sent to Calhoun’s treatment facility and Calhoun disposed of its post treatment sludge on nearby and adjacent property which resulted in PFAS contamination to their historic home, property, creek and drinking water. Plaintiffs’ assertions include negligence, nuisance, and trespass, and they seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as abatement, removal of PFAS from their property, attorneys’ fees and costs.

In January 2025, Gordon County, Georgia sued 3M, Daikin, Shaw, Aladdin, Mohawk, INV Performance Surfaces, Corteva, EIDP and the Company in Georgia state court alleging PFAS related to carpet manufacturing was manufactured, used, and discharged by Defendants and exists at dangerous levels in its landfill, and in its storm water runoff, leachate, groundwater, and methane gas. Gordon County asserts Georgia statutory violations as well as common law torts, including negligence and nuisance, and seeks past and future compensatory and statutory damages for remediation, abatement, interference with use and enjoyment of property, and diminished property values. Gordon County also seeks punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

In January 2025, 1001 Newark Ave. Associates, LLC filed a lawsuit in New Jersey federal court against General Spray Drying Services, Inc., Fabvan Sales Company (d/b/a Geral Spray Drying), EIDP, DuPont de Nemours, Corteva, Chemours and other defendants related to alleged contamination at a property in Elizabeth, NJ. The complaint alleges that General Spray’s processing operations resulted in discharges of other defendants’ PFAS and that these compounds have contaminated underlying soil and groundwater. The Complaint is brought under the federal CERCLA Act and the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act and seeks, inter alia, recovery of costs for the investigation and remediation of PFAS at the property and declaratory judgments relating thereto.

In the Netherlands, Chemours, along with DuPont and Corteva, received a civil summons filed before the Court of Rotterdam by four municipalities (Dordrecht, Papendrecht, Sliedrecht and Molenlanden) seeking liability declarations relating to the Dordrecht site’s operations and emissions. Chemours reviewed the summons and filed a statement of defense during the fourth quarter of 2021, and in September 2022 the court entered an interlocutory judgment denying in part certain aspects of such statement of defense. A hearing on the merits of the municipalities’ claims took place in March 2023. On September 27, 2023, the court entered a second interlocutory judgment, ruling, inter alia, that defendants were liable to the municipalities for (i) PFOA emissions during a certain time period and (ii) removal costs if deposited emissions on the municipalities land infringes their property rights by an objective standard. Any damages will be decided in a separate, subsequent proceeding. Chemours is in discussions with the municipalities to identify actions that may resolve their and other community concerns, including providing technical and financial support for activities. An initial estimate of this liability was included in Accrued Litigation at December 31, 2023 and was reclassified to Accrued Environmental Remediation as of December 31, 2024 based on the remediation plan to be implemented as part of the letter of intent ("LOI") described below.

In June 2024 the Company and the Municipalities signed a LOI that includes the implementation of a specific remediation plan for the restoration of restricted vegetable gardens in certain areas of those municipalities to be funded by Chemours, sampling and developing a program to address the Merwelanden recreational lake, and further settlement discussions, including a fund to cover certain other expenditures aimed at environmental-related activities. The LOI contemplates the possibility of settling the court dispute, although still subject to further discussions which are ongoing with the municipalities and there is no guarantee that these discussions will result in a settlement. Settlement discussions are complex and often involve potential amounts, scope and terms, which can be monetary and non-monetary. The Company does not consider these ongoing settlement discussions, including any amounts with respect to a potential fund that the municipalities put forward as part of such negotiations, to be indicative of the merits or potential outcome of any court proceeding with respect to the underlying claim. As such, as of December 31, 2024, the Company has not accrued for any amounts related to the fund mentioned above. Although the Company believes a loss is probable and could be material, it is not estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among others, that such discussions are in their early stages and have significant issues to be resolved.

Further, in the Netherlands, in September 2023, a Dutch criminal defense lawyer announced a criminal complaint with the support of a few thousand citizens against Chemours and its current and former directors for alleged unlawful emissions of PFOA and GenX in Dordrecht. This claim has been filed with the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which is proceeding with the investigation.

In May 2020, we were notified of an alleged criminal offense related to the Netherlands’ Environmental Management Act and the Working Conditions Decree, regarding the use of PFOA during the pre-spin time period of June 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012. The investigation was initiated in the first quarter of 2016 by a public prosecutor. We believe that we have complied with all relevant laws, and we are in contact with the prosecutor.

In addition to the above matters, the Company may engage in discussions or dispute resolutions with various parties regarding other claims, including third-party indemnity claims, and potential resolutions of such matters. In the year ended December 31, 2024, the Company recorded an immaterial amount related to one or more of these matters.

In March 2019, NJ DEP issued two Directives and filed four lawsuits against Chemours and other defendants. The Directives are: (i) a state-wide PFAS Directive issued to EID, DowDuPont, DuPont Specialty Products USA (“DuPont SP USA”), Solvay S.A., 3M, and Chemours seeking a meeting to discuss future costs for PFAS-related costs incurred by NJ DEP and establishing a funding source for such costs by the Directive recipients, and information relating to historic and current use of certain PFAS compounds; and, (ii) a Pompton Lakes Natural Resources Damages (“NRD”) Directive to EID and Chemours demanding $0.1 to cover the cost of preparation of a natural resource damage assessment plan and access to related documents.

The lawsuits filed in New Jersey state courts by NJ DEP are: (i) in Salem County, against EID, 3M, and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, the Water Pollution Control Act (“WPCA”), the Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”), and common law regarding past and present operations at Chambers Works, a site assigned to Chemours at Separation; (ii) in Middlesex County, against EID, DuPont SP USA, 3M, and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, ISRA, WPCA, and common law regarding past and present operations at Parlin, an EID owned site; (iii) in Gloucester County, against EID and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, WPCA, and common law regarding past operations at Repauno, a non-operating remediation site assigned to Chemours at Separation which has been sold; and, (iv) in Passaic County, against EID and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, WPCA, and common law regarding past operations at Pompton Lakes, a non-operating remediation site assigned to Chemours at Separation. The alleged pollutants listed in the Salem County and Middlesex County matters above include PFAS. Each lawsuit also alleges fraudulent transfer.

In August 2020, a Second Amended Complaint was filed in each matter, adding fraudulent transfer and other claims against DuPont SP USA, Corteva, and DuPont. For the Salem County matter, NJ DEP added claims relating to failure to comply with state directives, including the state-wide PFAS Directive.

The matters were removed to federal court and consolidated for case management and pretrial purposes. In December 2021, the federal court entered a consolidated order granting, in part, and denying, in part, a motion to dismiss or strike parts of the Second Amended Complaints. In January 2022, NJ DEP filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requiring EID and Chemours to establish a remediation funding source (“RFS”) in the amount of $943 for the Chambers Works site, the majority of which is for non-PFAS remediation items. In March 2023, the four NJDEP lawsuits were referred to mediation by the federal court, with the proceedings in the matters stayed pending the mediation. In April 2024 NJDEP submitted to the court a letter declaring that the parties had reached an impasse in the mediation. A case management schedule was entered by the court in May 2024, with the Chambers Works and Pompton Lakes matter being active and the other two matters being administratively terminated without prejudice. In August 2024, Third Amended Complaints were filed in the Chambers Works and Pompton Lakes Works matters. Discovery is ongoing in the Chambers Works matter with pretrial papers due in early May 2025, with trial to begin in May 2025. Discovery is also ongoing in the Pompton Lakes matter with document and ESI discovery set to close in May 2025. Other deadlines in the Pompton Lakes matter are to be addressed in a future scheduling order. In June 2024, Carneys Point Township filed a motion to intervene in such matter seeking to bring counterclaims against both the State of New Jersey and defendants, including Chemours, related to natural resource damages, remediation funding sources, ISRA penalties, off-site remediation and lost property taxes. In November 2024, Carneys Point Township’s motion to intervene was denied and it is proceeding separately in its 2016 state court matter.

EID requested that Chemours defend and indemnify it in these matters. Chemours has accepted the indemnity and defense of EID while reserving rights and declining EID’s demand as to matters involving other EID entities, as well as ISRA and fraudulent transfer, subject to the terms of the MOU.

With the exception of the individual matters specifically noted otherwise above, management believes that it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses related to PFOA and/or PFAS matters in excess of amounts accrued, but any such losses, which could be material to results of operations, financial position, or cash flows are not estimable at this time due to various reasons, including, among others, that some matters are in their early stages and that there are significant factual issues to be resolved.

There are five lawsuits currently pending in Indiana federal court, including a putative class action, by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana. Several of the lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for EID environmental liabilities. The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages, property diminution, and other damages. At Separation, EID assigned Chemours its former plant site, which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund area, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at the Superfund site. Management believes a loss, which could be material, is reasonably possible, but not estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among others, that such matters are in their early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved.

Securities Related Litigation and Requests for Information Arising From Audit Committee Internal Review, and Related Indemnification Agreements

The Audit Committee, with the assistance of independent counsel, conducted an internal review in the first quarter of 2024 arising from a report made to the Chemours Ethics Hotline, and its findings include that the Company’s then CEO, CFO and Controller violated the Chemours Code of Ethics for those positions. Chemours is cooperating with requests for information from the SEC and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York concerning the results of the Audit Committee Internal Review and the Company’s SEC filings and in June 2024 received a subpoena from the SEC. In March 2024, two putative class actions were filed in Delaware federal court against the Company and former officers of the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaints allege claims on behalf of proposed classes of purchasers of Chemours stock beginning February 10, 2023 and ending February 28, 2024 and seek compensatory damages and fees. In September 2024, an Amended Complaint was filed, and the Company and former officers filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in October 2024. In April 2024, June 2024, July 2024, August 2024 and October 2024, the Company received seven stockholder demands for inspection of books and records under Section 220 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware and the common law (“Section 220 Demand”), including in its purpose the investigation of possible wrongdoing, mismanagement or breach of fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors and/or senior management in connection with the compensation of executive officers and oversight over the Company’s accounting practices. In addition, the Company is aware of additional efforts by private law firms to solicit clients in regard to potential securities class action or derivative litigation. Management believes that it is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these matters or to estimate the loss or range of loss, if any, as the matters are in their early stages with significant issues to be resolved, including, for certain matters, whether a claim will be made.

The Company has indemnification and expense advancement obligations pursuant to its bylaws and indemnification agreements with respect to certain current and former members of senior management and the Company’s directors. In connection with the Audit Committee Internal Review, and above litigation matters, the Company has received requests from former members of senior management under such indemnification agreements and its bylaws to provide advances of funds for legal fees and other expenses and expects additional requests in connection with the investigation and any future related litigation. The Company incurred $1 of costs for these indemnification agreement requests during the year ended December 31, 2024. These costs have been recorded within Selling, general, and administrative expense. The Company has not recorded any material liabilities for these matters as of December 31, 2024 and 2023 as it cannot estimate the ultimate outcome at this time.

Chemours, due to the terms of the Separation-related agreements with EID, is subject to contingencies pursuant to environmental laws and regulations that in the future may require further action to correct the effects on the environment of prior disposal practices or releases of chemical substances, which are attributable to EID’s activities before it spun-off Chemours. Much of this liability results from the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”, often referred to as “Superfund”), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and similar federal, state, local, and foreign laws. These laws may require Chemours to undertake certain investigative, remediation, and restoration activities at sites where ownership was transferred to Chemours under the Separation-related agreements or at sites where EID-generated waste was disposed before the 2015 separation. The accrual also includes estimated costs related to a number of sites identified for which it is probable that environmental remediation will be required, but which are not currently the subject of enforcement activities.

Chemours accrues for remediation activities when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and a reasonable estimate of the liability can be made. Where the available information is sufficient to estimate the amount of liability, that estimate has been used. Where the available information is only sufficient to establish a range of probable liability, and no point within the range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. Estimated liabilities are determined based on existing remediation laws and technologies and the Company’s planned remedial responses, which are derived from environmental studies, sampling, testing, and analyses. Inherent uncertainties exist in such evaluations, primarily due to unknown environmental conditions, changing governmental regulations regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies. The Company, from time to time, may engage third parties to assist in obtaining and/or evaluating relevant data and assumptions when estimating its remediation liabilities. These liabilities are adjusted periodically as remediation efforts progress and as additional technological, regulatory, and legal information becomes available. Environmental liabilities and expenditures include claims for matters that are liabilities of EID and its subsidiaries, which Chemours may be required to indemnify pursuant to the Separation-related agreements. These accrued liabilities are undiscounted and do not include claims against third parties. Costs related to environmental remediation are charged to expense in the period that the associated liability is accrued.

The following table sets forth the Company’s environmental remediation liabilities at December 31, 2024 and 2023 for the six sites that are deemed the most significant during the periods presented, together with the aggregate liabilities for all other sites.


	December 31,
	2024		2023
Chambers Works, Deepwater, New Jersey	$	31	$	30
Dordrecht Works, Netherlands (1)		28		4
Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina (2)		351		383
Pompton Lakes, New Jersey		41		41
USS Lead, East Chicago, Indiana (3)		—		12
Washington Works, West Virginia		25		22
All other sites		95		98
Total environmental remediation	$	571	$	590

(1)

As of December 31, 2024, environmental remediation at Dordrecht Works primarily relates to the remediation plan to be implemented as part of the letter of intent described further within this “Note 22 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”. An initial estimate of this liability was included in Accrued Litigation at December 31, 2023 and reclassified to Accrued Environmental Remediation at December 31, 2024

(2)

For more information on this matter refer to “Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina” within this “Note 22 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”.

(3)

USS Lead, East Chicago, Indiana: Although USS Lead, East Chicago, Indiana has a $0 balance as of December 31, 2024, the Company continues to include this remediation site in the table above due to the accrued environmental remediation liabilities associated with it as of December 31, 2023 for comparable purposes.

The following table sets forth the current and long-term components of the Company’s environmental remediation liabilities at December 31, 2024 and 2023.


	December 31,
	2024		2023
Current environmental remediation	$	115	$	129
Long-term environmental remediation		456		461
Total environmental remediation	$	571	$	590

Typically, the timeframe for a site to go through all phases of remediation (investigation and active clean-up) may take about 15 to 20 years, followed by several years of operation, maintenance, and monitoring (“OM&M”) activities. Remediation activities, including OM&M activities, vary substantially in duration and cost from site to site. These activities, and their associated costs, depend on the mix of unique site characteristics, evolving remediation technologies, and diverse regulatory requirements, as well as the presence or absence of other potentially responsible parties. In addition, for claims that Chemours may be required to indemnify EID pursuant to the Separation-related agreements, Chemours, through EID, has limited available information for certain sites or is in the early stages of discussions with regulators. For these sites in particular, there may be considerable variability between the clean-up activities that are currently being undertaken or planned and the ultimate actions that could be required. Therefore, considerable uncertainty exists with respect to environmental remediation costs and, under adverse changes in circumstances, management currently estimates the potential liabilities may range up to approximately $720 above the amount accrued at December 31, 2024. This estimate is not intended to reflect an assessment of Chemours’ maximum potential liability. As noted above, the estimated liabilities are determined based on existing remediation laws and technologies and the Company’s planned remedial responses, which are derived from environmental studies, sampling, testing, and analyses. Inherent uncertainties exist in such evaluations, primarily due to unknown environmental conditions, changing governmental regulations regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies. Management will continue to evaluate as new or additional information becomes available in the determination of its environmental remediation liability.

In October 2021, EPA released its PFAS Strategic Roadmap, identifying a comprehensive approach to addressing PFAS. The PFAS Strategic Roadmap sets timelines by which EPA planned to take specific actions through 2024, including establishing a national primary drinking water regulation for PFOA and PFOS and taking Effluent Limitations Guidelines actions to regulate PFAS discharges from industrial categories among other actions. As provided under its roadmap, EPA also released its National PFAS Testing Strategy, under which the agency will identify and select certain PFAS compounds for which it will require manufacturers to conduct testing pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) section 4. Chemours has received various test orders and has formed consortia to jointly manage compliance with the test order requirements. Chemours expects to receive future test orders, however the timing of the remaining test orders is not determinable at this time. The timing of the draft Effluent Limitations Guidelines for PFAS manufacturers as announced in the PFAS Strategic Roadmap is uncertain.

Also in October 2021, EPA published a final toxicity assessment for GenX compounds that decreased the draft reference dose for GenX compounds based on EPA’s review of new studies and analyses. On March 18, 2022, Chemours filed a petition to EPA requesting to withdraw and correct its toxicity assessment for GenX compounds, which was denied by EPA on June 14, 2022. The next day, on June 15, 2022, EPA released health advisories for four PFAS, including interim updated lifetime drinking water health advisories for PFOA and PFOS, and final health advisories for GenX compounds, including hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (“HFPO Dimer Acid”), and another PFAS compound (PFBS). On July 13, 2022 the Company filed a Petition for Review of the GenX compounds health advisory, and the Third Circuit held argument on the petition in January 2024. In July 2024, the Third Circuit dismissed the Company’s petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the health advisory was not a final agency action.

In March 2023, EPA proposed a national primary drinking water regulation ("NPDWR") to establish Maximum Contaminant Levels ("MCLs") for six PFAS, with PFOA and PFOS having MCLs as individual compounds (each proposed as 4 parts per trillion ("ppt")) and four other PFAS compounds, including HFPO Dimer Acid, having a hazard index approach limit on any mixture containing one or more of the compounds. The proposed PFAS NPDWR was subject to public comment until May 30, 2023, and on April 10, 2024 EPA issued its final rule, which included promulgating individual MCLs for PFOA and PFOS at 4ppt and individual MCLs for PFHxS, PFNA and HFPO-DA at 10ppt. In addition, EPA finalized a hazard index of 1 (unitless) as the MCL for any mixture of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and PFBS. The final rule became effective 60 days from publication in the Federal Register and the compliance date for public water systems in the U.S. to meet the MCLs is five years from the publication date. In June 2024, Chemours, as well as other organizations including the American Water Works Association and the American Chemistry Council, filed petitions for review of the final rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This appeal is now being held in abeyance until April 2025 to allow EPA to review the underlying rule. Also in April 2024, EPA issued a final rule designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, which has also been challenged in the same appeals court. EPA has moved to hold this appeal also in abeyance to allow review of the underlying rule. Depending on the ultimate outcome of EPA’s actions, our estimated environmental remediation liabilities and accrued litigation could increase to meet any new drinking water standards, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

As further discussed in the Other PFAS Matters section above, the Company and the municipalities of Dordrecht, Papendrecht, Sliedrecht and Molenlanden signed a Letter of Intent ("LOI") that includes the implementation of a specific remediation plan for the restoration of restricted vegetables in certain areas of those municipalities to be funded by Chemours, sampling and developing a program to address the Merwelanden recreational lake, and further settlement discussions. In the fourth quarter of 2024, the Company received comments from the Municipality of Dordrecht and the Province of South Holland on a Plan of Action for Vegetable Gardens ("Plan of Action") in the municipalities and approval for the pilot stage of the plan. The Plan of Action provides for replacement of soil impacted with PFOA above certain levels to remove RIVM documented consumption restriction as well as providing for alternative irrigation water, if necessary, as determined by PFOA levels. This accrual had a change in estimate which increased the accrual by $15 based on the comments on the Plan of Action and other factors and is included in the environmental remediation balance as of December 31, 2024.

Further, The Dordrecht Works facility discharges, through outfalls at the site, wastewater and stormwater pursuant to permits issued by the applicable local authorities, including the DCMR Environmental Protection Agency (‘DCMR”). As the regulatory landscape has evolved in the Netherlands over the last years, there is increased focus on PFAS compounds discharged under the site’s permits, including compounds that were previously discharged at undetected levels, and the site has been ordered to meet certain limits for these discharges or be subject to conditional fines. The Company regularly carries out analyses of its wastewater to assess compliance with current emission limits as well as detect other contaminants as analysis methods develop. The Company identified the presence of certain compounds based upon new analysis methods and reported these to DCMR and in December 2023 submitted an application under normal permitting practice for a discharge requirement based on limited information for these compounds. The Company has continued to engage with regulatory authorities on the application, including providing additional data and information in November 2024. In January 2025, the Company submitted a revised permit application.

In December 2024, DCMR indicated an intention to impose a conditional fine of up to €3.7 million per violation for one of the compounds, for which the Company has objected. The Company has responded to this intention, including that such intention is not consistent with normal permitting practice. In February 2025, DCMR responded to the Company indicating it will impose the conditional fine, after a two-month grace period. The Company has taken and continues to take actions to reduce discharges. The Company is evaluating DCMR's recent response and all available legal actions and recourse available to the Company. The Company has not recorded a liability for this matter at December 31, 2024 as the conditional fine is not effective at this time and will only be imposed after the two-month grace period, if at that time, the Company fails to comply with the discharge limits for the compound. As of December 31, 2024, the Company does not believe the above matter will have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The environmental remediation liabilities and accrued litigation, as applicable, recorded for Fayetteville, Washington Works, Parkersburg, West Virginia, Dordrecht Works, Netherlands and Chambers Works, Deepwater, New Jersey as of December 31, 2024 are based upon the existing Consent Orders, agreements and/or voluntary commitments with EPA, state and other local regulators and depending on the ultimate outcome of EPA’s actions, could require adjustment to meet any new drinking water standards. It is reasonably possible that additional costs could be incurred in connection with EPA’s actions, however, the Company cannot estimate the potential impact or additional cost at this time, due in part to the uncertainties of challenges to them, the, regulatory implementation site by site, where applicable, the current condition and the additional sampling required to determine the level of contamination at the site, possible method(s) of remediation that may be required, and determination of other potential responsible parties. Refer to “Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina” below for further detail on the impact of EPA’s final drinking water health advisory for GenX compounds, including HFPO Dimer Acid.

Chemours incurred environmental remediation expenses of $70, $66 and $269 for the years ended December 31, 2024, 2023 and 2022, respectively, of which $20, $25 and $229, respectively, relate to Fayetteville (discussed further below).

Fayetteville has been in operation since the 1970s and is located next to the Cape Fear River southeast of the City of Fayetteville, North Carolina. Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid ("HFPO Dimer Acid"), (sometimes referred to as “GenX” or “C3 Dimer Acid”) is manufactured at Fayetteville. The Company has operated the site since its Separation from EID in 2015.

While the Company believes that discharges from Fayetteville to the Cape Fear River, on-site surface water, groundwater, and air emissions have not impacted the safety of drinking water in North Carolina, the Company is cooperating with a variety of ongoing inquiries and investigations from federal, state, and local authorities, regulators, and other governmental entities including EPA.

Consent Order with North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (“NC DEQ”)

In February 2019, the North Carolina Superior Court for Bladen County approved a Consent Order (“CO”) between NC DEQ, Cape Fear River Watch ("CFRW"), and the Company, resolving the State’s and CFRW’s lawsuits and other matters (including Notices of Violation (“NOVs”) issued by the State). Under the terms of the CO, Chemours paid $13 in March 2019 to cover a civil penalty and investigative costs and agreed to certain compliance measures (with stipulated penalties for failures to do so), including the following:

In August 2020, NC DEQ, CFRW, and the Company reached agreement on the terms of an addendum to the CO (the “Addendum”), which includes procedures for implementing specified remedial measures for reducing PFAS loadings from Fayetteville to the Cape Fear River. The Addendum also includes stipulated financial penalties, inclusive of daily and weekly fines for untimeliness in meeting deadlines for construction, installation and other requirements, as well as intermittent performance-based fines for noncompliance in meeting PFAS loading reduction requirements and removal efficiency targets. In October 2020, the Addendum was approved by the North Carolina Superior Court for Bladen County.

The following table sets forth the on-site and off-site components of the Company’s accrued environmental remediation liabilities related to PFAS at Fayetteville at December 31, 2024 and 2023.


	December 31,
	2024		2023
On-site remediation	$	188	$	208
Off-site groundwater remediation		163		175
Total Fayetteville environmental remediation	$	351	$	383

The following table sets forth the current and long-term components of the Company’s accrued environmental remediation liabilities related to PFAS at Fayetteville at December 31, 2024 and 2023.


	December 31,
	2024		2023
Current environmental remediation	$	68	$	76
Long-term environmental remediation		283		307
Total Fayetteville environmental remediation	$	351	$	383

The CO requires the Company to provide permanent replacement drinking water supplies, including via connection to public water supply, whole building filtration units and/or RO units, to qualifying surrounding residents, businesses, schools, and public buildings with private drinking water wells. Qualifying surrounding properties with private drinking water wells that have tested for GenX above the state provisional health goal of 140 ppt, or any applicable health advisory, whichever is lower, may be eligible for public water or a whole building filtration system. NCDEQ provided notice that the June 2022 release of the final health advisory for GenX compounds by EPA constituted an applicable health advisory for determining eligibility for public water or whole house filtration system. Additionally, under the CO, qualifying surrounding properties with private drinking water wells that have tested above 10 ppt for other perfluorinated compounds (“Table 3 Compounds”) are eligible for three under-sink RO units. The Company provides bottled drinking water to a qualifying property when it becomes eligible for a replacement drinking water supply, and continues to provide delivery of bottled drinking water to the qualifying property until the eligible supply is established or installed. Under the terms of the CO, Chemours must make the offer to install a water treatment system to property owners in writing multiple times, and property owners have approximately one year to accept the Company’s offer before it expires. In September 2021, the Company entered into an agreement with Bladen County, North Carolina to fund public water system upgrades and connections associated with providing permanent replacement drinking water supplies under the CO.

Further, in addition to the surrounding counties, in November 2021, NC DEQ sent a notice to Chemours regarding PFAS contamination from the Cape Fear River of groundwater monitoring wells and water supply wells in New Hanover County and potentially three other downstream counties based on new sampling data by NC DEQ and its determination of Chemours’ obligations for such contamination. NC DEQ directed Chemours to submit for its review and approval a comprehensive groundwater contamination assessment in such counties, as well as an updated drinking water program to provide for sampling under the CO in such counties. In 2022, the Company submitted an interim drinking water plan and a separate assessment framework plan, which were subsequently updated and resubmitted, based on comments received from NC DEQ. In 2023, NC DEQ provided additional comments identifying additional actions regarding the groundwater assessment as well as the drinking water program, which the Company responded to.

The Company’s estimated liability for off-site replacement drinking water supplies is based on management’s assessment of the current facts and circumstances for this matter, including comments received from NC DEQ, which are subject to various assumptions that include, but are not limited to, the number of affected surrounding properties, response rates to the Company’s offer, the timing of expiration of offers made to the property owners, the type of water treatment systems selected (i.e., public water, whole building filtration, or RO units), the cost of the selected water treatment systems, and any related OM&M requirements, fines and penalties, and other charges contemplated by the CO. For off-site drinking water supplies, OM&M is accrued for 20 years on an undiscounted basis based on the Company’s current plans under the CO.

At December 31, 2024 and 2023, the Company had $141 and $147 of accrued liabilities, respectively, for off-site groundwater testing and water treatment system installations at qualifying third-party properties primarily in Bladen and Cumberland counties surrounding Fayetteville, which is expected to be disbursed over approximately 20 years. In addition, as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, the Company had $21 and $28, respectively, of accrued liabilities for the assessment and for sampling related to potential PFAS contamination of groundwater and supply of alternative drinking water in New Hanover and three other downstream counties. Off-site installation, maintenance, and monitoring cost estimates are based on management’s assessment of the current facts and circumstances for these matters, including comments received from NC DEQ, and could change as actual experience may differ from management’s estimates or new information may become available.

The estimated liability was based on certain assumptions, which management believes are reasonable under the circumstances and include, but are not limited to, implementation of the soil and groundwater assessment, the source and cause of PFAS contamination for the four downstream counties, the estimated number of properties at which sampling is conducted and whether such property will qualify for an alternative drinking water supply, other potentially responsible parties and the method of long-term alternative water supply, if any. Further, management’s estimate of the ultimate liability for this matter is dependent upon NC DEQ approval of the proposed plans in response to various NC DEQ letters, obtaining additional information, implementation of EPA’s health advisories, additional feasibility and investigation work that has not yet been scoped or performed, and the estimated additional future cost of OM&M. The ultimate resolution of the matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flow.

Abatement and remediation measures already taken by Chemours, including the capture and disposal of its operations’ process wastewater and other interim actions, have addressed and abated nearly all PFAS discharges from the Company’s continuing operations at Fayetteville. However, the Company continues to have active dialogue with NC DEQ and other stakeholders regarding the potential incremental remedies that are both economically and technologically feasible to achieve the CO and Addendum objectives related to the impact of site surface water and groundwater contamination from historical operations, during and subsequent to the optimization period of the groundwater treatment system and following installation of the barrier wall.

In 2019, the Company completed and submitted its Cape Fear River PFAS Loading Reduction Plan - Supplemental Information Report and its CAP to NC DEQ. The Supplemental Information Report provided information to support the evaluation of potential interim remedial options to reduce PFAS loadings to surface waters. The CAP described potential long-term remediation activities to address PFAS in groundwater and surface waters at the site, in accordance with the requirements of the CO and the North Carolina groundwater standards, and built upon the previous submissions to NC DEQ. The NC DEQ received comments on the CAP during a public comment period, and the Company is awaiting formal response to the CAP from NC DEQ. With respect to the CO, the Addendum was approved by the North Carolina Superior Court for Bladen County in October 2020 and establishes the procedure to implement specified remedial measures for reducing PFAS loadings from Fayetteville to the Cape Fear River, including construction of a barrier wall with a groundwater extraction system, which was completed in June 2023, followed by an engineers certification confirming that the barrier wall was constructed and documented to be in conformance with the approved design.

Based on the CO, the Addendum, the CAP, and management’s plans, which are based on current regulations and technology, the Company has accrued $188 and $208 at December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively, related to the estimated cost of on-site remediation, based on the range of potential outcomes on current potential remedial options, and the projected amounts to be paid over a period of approximately 20 years. The final costs of any selected remediation will depend primarily on permit compliance requirements, ongoing dialogue with NC DEQ and other stakeholders regarding the potential incremental remedies that are both economically and technologically feasible to achieve the CO and Addendum objectives, and estimated future cost and time period of OM&M. Further, the final cost of the on-site groundwater treatment system depends on water treatment requirements and estimated treatment reagent and media usage. As such, cost estimates could change as actual experience may differ from management's estimates. Changes in estimates are recorded in results of operations in the period that the events and circumstances giving rise to such changes occur.

The Company’s estimated liability for the remediation activities that are probable and estimable is based on the CO, the Addendum, the CAP, and management’s assessment of the current facts and circumstances, which is subject to various assumptions including the transport pathways (being pathways by which PFAS reaches the Cape Fear River) that will require remedial actions, the types of interim and permanent site surface water and on-site remedies and treatment systems selected and implemented, the estimated cost of such potential remedies and treatment systems, any related OM&M requirements, and other charges contemplated by the CO and the Addendum.

The Company accrued 20 years of OM&M for Fayetteville environmental remediation systems based on the CO and Addendum, which includes estimated higher power consumption, ongoing monitoring, pretreatment, filtering supplies (principally carbon) and regular maintenance of the system over a 20-year period of estimated operation starting in 2023.

It is possible that issues relating to site discharges in various transport pathways, the selection of remediation alternatives to achieve PFAS loading reductions, or the operating effectiveness of the TO could result in further litigation and/or regulatory demands with regards to Fayetteville, including potential permit modifications or penalties under the CO and the Addendum. It is also possible that, as additional data is collected on the transport pathways and dialogue continues with NC DEQ and other stakeholders, the type or extent of remediation actions required to achieve the objectives committed to in the CO may change (increase or decrease) or remediation activities could be delayed. If such issues arise, or if the CO is further amended, an additional loss is reasonably possible, but not estimable at this time.

In February 2019, the Company received an NOV from EPA, alleging certain TSCA violations at Fayetteville. Matters raised in the NOV could have the potential to affect operations at Fayetteville. For this NOV, the Company responded to EPA in March 2019, asserting that the Company has not violated environmental laws. The Company is in discussions with EPA regarding PFAS-related allegations at its sites, including the February 2019 NOV, and as of December 31, 2024, management believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not estimable at this time.

Beginning in 2017, civil actions have been filed against EID and Chemours in North Carolina courts relating to discharges from Fayetteville. These actions include a consolidated action brought by four public water suppliers seeking damages and injunctive relief, a consolidated purported class action seeking medical monitoring, and property damage and/or other monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of the putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or that draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River, and two actions encompassing approximately 2,600 private well owners seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Ruling on the Company’s motions in April 2019, the court dismissed the medical monitoring, injunctive demand, and many other alleged causes of actions in these lawsuits. In October 2023, the court certified the property damages class action. In December 2024, EID and Chemours filed a motion to decertify the class on the grounds, among others, that the class representatives are inadequate and not representative. In March 2023, one of the public water suppliers brought a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court against EID, Chemours, Corteva and DuPont alleging voidable transfer and other claims arising from the Chemours separation and DowDuPont merger and subsequent restructurings, asset transfers and separations; the matter is now stayed.

In addition to natural resource damages matter filed by the State of North Carolina (as discussed within the “PFAS” section of this “Note 22 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities”), in September 2020, three additional lawsuits were filed in North Carolina state court against Chemours and EID, as well as other defendants. One of the lawsuits is a putative class action on behalf of residents who are served by the Cape Fear Public Water utility, alleges negligence, nuisance, and other claims related to the release of perfluorinated compounds from Fayetteville, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages and medical monitoring. The other two lawsuits were filed on behalf of individuals residing near Fayetteville and allege negligence, nuisance, and other claims related to the release of perfluorinated compounds. The individuals seek compensatory property damages, punitive damages, and, in some cases, medical monitoring. All three lawsuits allege fraudulent transfer against EID and other EID entities, but not against Chemours. In October 2020, the cases were removed to federal court and then the two lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals were remanded back to state court.

In March 2022, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of an individual residing near the Fayetteville site against Chemours, EID and other defendants alleging negligence, nuisance and other claims related to the discharges from the Fayetteville site. The individual seeks compensatory property damages, punitive damages and medical monitoring. The lawsuit also alleges fraudulent transfer against EID and other EID entities, but not against Chemours.

Also, in March 2022, Cumberland County, North Carolina filed suit in state court against Chemours, EID and other defendants related to discharges from the Fayetteville site alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass and fraudulent transfer. The lawsuit seeks damages as well as injunctive and equitable relief. In January 2025, the court informed the parties that trial will be scheduled for September 29, 2025.

In December 2022, Aqua North Carolina, Inc. filed suit in North Carolina state court alleging EID, DuPont, DowDuPont, Inc and the Company are responsible for polyfluorinated chemical contamination of the Cape Fear River, groundwater and other water sources used by Aqua North Carolina across the state to serve its water customers. The complaint alleges product liability, negligence, trespass, deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment and fraudulent transfer. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2023, the matter was removed to federal court. In July 2024, the court dismissed the claims for products liability, deceptive trade practices and public nuisance.

As of December 2023, lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of 59 individuals residing near Fayetteville against Chemours, EID, Corteva and DuPont alleging personal injury, property damages and deceptive trade practices related to the discharges from Fayetteville. The individuals seek compensatory damages, equitable relief, attorney fees and punitive damages. In December 2023 and January 2024, amended complaints were filed in each case dropping fraudulent transfer claims. In September 2024, the court dismissed claims for deceptive trade practices, public nuisance, negligence per se and trespass to chattels.

It is possible that additional litigation may be filed against the Company and/or EID concerning the Fayetteville discharges. It is not possible at this point to predict the timing, course, or outcome of all governmental and regulatory inquiries and notices and litigation related to Fayetteville, and it is reasonably possible that these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. In addition, local communities, organizations, and federal and state regulatory agencies have raised questions concerning HFPO Dimer Acid and other perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds at certain other manufacturing sites operated by the Company. It is possible that additional developments similar to those described above and centering on Fayetteville could arise in other locations.

On October 31, 2024, the Company received a request from the Dutch ILT agency to amend the Company's F-gas reporting for certain years to reflect HFCs produced and consumed or destroyed at the Dordrecht Works facility. The agency asserts that under Regulation (EU) 2024/573, which repealed and replaced Regulation 517/2014 in February 2024, such compounds are subject to the F-gas quota system. In November 2024, the Company made minor amendments to its F-gas reporting for the above years and consulted with the Dutch ILT agency and EU Commission on the above. In February 2025, the Company received an intention for the ILT to collect a penalty of €1 million based on the consideration that HFC-23 imported or acquired on the market and added to the production process rather than directly sent for destruction is quota consuming. The Company is reviewing the ILT intention and believes it is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this matter or to estimate the loss or range of loss, if any, as the matter continues to have significant issues to be evaluated.

In addition, in the ordinary course of business, the Company may make certain commitments, including representations, warranties, and indemnities relating to current and past operations, including environmental remediation and other potential costs related to divested assets and businesses, and issue guarantees of third-party obligations. The Company accrues for these matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated.

In connection with the sale of the Mining Solutions business, the Company provided a limited indemnification with respect to environmental liabilities that may arise from activities prior to the closing date. Such indemnification would not exceed approximately $78 and will expire on December 1, 2026. No liabilities have been recorded at December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively, with respect to this indemnification.

In December 2024, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition filed a complaint under the Clean Water Act in West Virginia federal court alleging past and ongoing exceedances of certain effluent discharge limits, including those for PFOA and HFPO-DA, under the NPDES permit held by the Chemours Washington Works facility. The complaint alleges CWA violations since December 2019 and seeks civil penalties of less than $0.1 per day for each violation, as well as injunctive relief. The complaint lists 199 separate violations, including daily and monthly reporting. At this early stage of the litigation, Management believes that a loss is reasonably possible but not estimable.