XML 33 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.2

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Guarantees Indemnifications In connection with acquisitions and divestitures, the company has indemnified respective parties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with these transactions and business activities prior to the completion of the transactions. The term of these indemnifications, which typically pertain to environmental, tax and product liabilities, is generally indefinite. In addition, the company indemnifies its duly elected or appointed directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, against liabilities incurred as a result of their activities for the company, such as adverse judgments relating to litigation matters. If the indemnified party were to incur a liability or have a liability increase as a result of a successful claim, pursuant to the terms of the indemnification, the company would be required to reimburse the indemnified party. The maximum amount of potential future payments is generally unlimited. See below for additional information relating to the indemnification obligations under the Chemours Separation Agreement and the Corteva Separation Agreement. Obligations for Supplier Finance Programs The company enters into supplier finance programs with various finance providers in which the company agrees to pay the stated amount of confirmed invoices from participating suppliers by the original maturity date. The company or the financial provider may terminate the agreement upon providing at least thirty days’ written notice. The payment terms that the company has with its finance providers under supplier finance programs are less than one year. At June 30, 2023, December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022, the outstanding obligations under supplier finance programs was approximately $115 million, $220 million, and $185 million, respectively, and included within accounts payable in the interim Consolidated Balance Sheets. Obligations for Customers and Other Third Parties The company has directly guaranteed various debt obligations under agreements with third parties related to customers and other third parties. At June 30, 2023, December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022, the company had directly guaranteed $73 million, $88 million, and $94 million, respectively, of such obligations. These amounts represent the maximum potential amount of future (undiscounted) payments that the company could be required to make under the guarantees in the event of default by the guaranteed party. Of the maximum future payments at June 30, 2023, approximately $15 million had terms greater than one year. The maximum future payments include $5 million, $16 million and $22 million at June 30, 2023, December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022, respectively, of guarantees related to the various factoring agreements that the company enters into with third-party financial institutions to sell its trade receivables. See Note 9 - Accounts and Notes Receivable - Net, to the interim Consolidated Financial Statements, for additional information. The maximum future payments also include agreements with lenders to establish programs that provide financing for select customers. The terms of the guarantees are equivalent to the terms of the customer loans that are primarily made to finance customer invoices. The total amounts owed from customers to the lenders relating to these agreements was $494 million, $202 million and $632 million at June 30, 2023, December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022, respectively. The company assesses the payment/performance risk by assigning default rates based on the duration of the guarantees. These default rates are assigned based on the external credit rating of the counterparty or through internal credit analysis and historical default history for counterparties that do not have published credit ratings. For counterparties without an external rating or available credit history, a cumulative average default rate is used. Indemnifications under Separation Agreements The company has entered into various agreements where the company is indemnified for certain liabilities. The term of this indemnification is generally indefinite, with exceptions, and includes defense costs and expenses, as well as monetary and non-monetary settlements and judgments. In connection with the recognition of liabilities related to these matters, the company records an indemnification asset when recovery is deemed probable. Chemours/Performance Chemicals Pursuant to the Chemours Separation Agreement resulting from the 2015 spin-off of the Performance Chemicals segment from Historical DuPont, Chemours indemnifies the company against certain litigation, environmental, workers' compensation and other liabilities that arose prior to the distribution. In 2017, the Chemours Separation Agreement was amended to provide for a limited sharing of potential future liabilities related to alleged historical releases of perfluorooctanoic acids and its ammonium salts (“PFOA”) for a five-year period that began on July 6, 2017. In addition, in 2017, Chemours and EIDP settled multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (“Ohio MDL”), resolving claims of about 3,550 plaintiffs alleging injury from exposure to PFOA in drinking water as a result of the historical manufacture or use of PFOA at the Washington Works plant outside Parkersburg, West Virginia. This plant was previously owned and/or operated by the performance chemicals segment of EIDP and is now owned and/or operated by Chemours. On May 13, 2019, Chemours filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against DuPont, EIDP, and Corteva, seeking, among other things, to limit its responsibility for the litigation and environmental liabilities allocated to and assumed by Chemours under the Chemours Separation Agreement (the “Delaware Litigation”). On March 30, 2020, the Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss. On December 15, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. Meanwhile, a confidential arbitration process regarding the same and other claims proceeded (the “Arbitration”). On January 22, 2021, Chemours, DuPont, Corteva and EIDP entered into a binding memorandum of understanding containing a settlement to resolve legal disputes originating from the Delaware Litigation and Arbitration, and to establish a cost sharing arrangement and escrow account to be used to support and manage potential future legacy per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") liabilities arising out of pre-July 1, 2015 conduct (the “MOU”). The MOU replaces the 2017 amendment to the Chemours Separation Agreement. According to the terms of the cost sharing arrangement within the MOU, Corteva and DuPont together, on one hand, and Chemours, on the other hand, agreed to a 50-50 split of certain qualified expenses related to PFAS liabilities incurred over a term not to exceed twenty years or $4 billion of qualified spend and escrow account contributions (see below for discussion of the escrow account) in the aggregate. DuPont’s and Corteva’s 50% share under the MOU will be limited to $2 billion, including qualified expenses and escrow contributions. These expenses and escrow account contributions will be subject to the existing Letter Agreement, under which DuPont and Corteva will each bear 50% of the first $300 million (up to $150 million each), and thereafter DuPont bears 71% and Corteva bears the remaining 29%. Under the terms of the MOU, Corteva's estimated aggregate share of the potential $2 billion is approximately $600 million. In order to support and manage any potential future PFAS liabilities, the parties have also agreed to establish an escrow account ("MOU Escrow Account"). The MOU provides that (1) no later than each of September 30, 2021 and September 30, 2022, Chemours shall deposit $100 million into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $100 million in the aggregate into an escrow account and (2) no later than September 30 of each subsequent year through and including 2028, Chemours shall deposit $50 million into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $50 million in the aggregate into an escrow account. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the MOU, each party may be permitted to defer funding in any year (excluding 2021). Over this period, Chemours will deposit a total of $500 million in the account and DuPont and Corteva will deposit an additional $500 million pursuant to the terms of the Letter Agreement. Additionally, if on December 31, 2028, the balance of the escrow account (including interest) is less than $700 million, Chemours will make 50% of the deposits and DuPont and Corteva together will make 50% of the deposits necessary to restore the balance of the escrow account to $700 million, pursuant to the terms of the Letter Agreement. Such payments will be made in a series of consecutive annual equal installments commencing on September 30, 2029, pursuant to the escrow account replenishment terms as set forth in the MOU. The MOU provides that no withdrawals from the MOU Escrow Account can be made before year six, except to fund mutually agreed upon third-party settlements in excess of $125 million. Starting with year six, withdrawals can only be made to fund qualified spend if the parties’ aggregate qualified spend in that particular year is greater than $200 million. Beginning with year 11, the amounts in the MOU Escrow Account can be used to fund any qualified spend. The company made its annual installment deposits due to the MOU Escrow Account through June 30, 2023. As of June 30, 2023, these payments are classified as current restricted cash equivalents and included in other current assets in the interim Consolidated Balance Sheets. After the term of this arrangement, Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the original 2015 Chemours Separation Agreement, would continue unchanged, subject in each case to certain exceptions set out in the MOU. Under the MOU, Chemours waived specified claims regarding the construct of its 2015 spin-off transaction, and the parties dismissed the Pending Arbitration regarding those claims. Additionally, the parties have agreed to resolve the Ohio MDL PFOA personal injury litigation (as discussed below). The parties are expected to cooperate in good faith to enter into additional agreements reflecting the terms set forth in the MOU. Corteva Separation Agreement On April 1, 2019, in connection with the Dow Distribution, Corteva, DuPont and Dow entered into the Corteva Separation Agreement, the Tax Matters Agreement, the Employee Matters Agreement, and certain other agreements (collectively, the “Corteva Separation Agreements”). The Corteva Separation Agreements allocate among Corteva, DuPont and Dow assets, employees, certain liabilities and obligations (including its investments, property and employee benefits and tax-related assets and liabilities) among the parties and provides for indemnification obligation among the parties. Under the Corteva Separation Agreements, DuPont will indemnify Corteva against certain litigation, environmental, tax, workers' compensation and other liabilities that arose prior to the Corteva Distribution and Dow indemnifies Corteva against certain litigation, environmental, tax, workers' compensation and other liabilities that relate to the Historical Dow business, and Corteva indemnifies DuPont and Dow for certain liabilities. Under the Corteva Separation Agreement, certain legacy EIDP liabilities from discontinued and/or divested operations and businesses of EIDP (including Performance Chemicals) (a “stray liability”) were allocated to Corteva or DuPont. For those stray liabilities allocated to Corteva (which may include a specified amount of liability associated with that liability), Corteva is responsible for liabilities in an amount up to that specified amount plus an additional $200 million and, for those stray liabilities allocated to DuPont (which may include a specified amount of liability associated with that liability), DuPont is responsible for liabilities up to a specified amount plus an additional $200 million. Once each company has met the $200 million threshold, Corteva and DuPont will share future liabilities proportionally on the basis of 29% and 71%, respectively; provided, however, that for PFAS, DuPont managed such liabilities with Corteva and DuPont sharing the costs on a 50% - 50% basis starting from $1 and up to $300 million (with such amount, up to $150 million, to be credited to each company’s $200 million threshold) and once the $300 million threshold was met, the companies share proportionally on the basis of 29% and 71% respectively, subject to a $1 million de minimis requirement. The aggregate amount of cash remitted by Corteva has exceeded the stray liability thresholds, including PFAS, noted above. At June 30, 2023, December 31, 2022, and June 30, 2022, the indemnification assets were $39 million, $31 million, and $28 million, respectively, within accounts and notes receivable - net and $108 million, $105 million, and $82 million, respectively, within other assets in the interim Consolidated Balance Sheets. At June 30, 2023, December 31, 2022, and June 30, 2022, the indemnification liabilities were $44 million, $31 million, and $30 million, respectively, within accrued and other current liabilities and $115 million, $115 million, and $119 million, respectively, within other noncurrent obligations in the interim Consolidated Balance Sheets. Discontinued Operations Activity The company recorded charges of $163 million and $171 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2023, respectively, and $30 million and $40 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2022, respectively, to income (loss) from discontinued operations after income taxes, in the interim Consolidated Statement of Operations. The after-tax charges recognized during the three and six months ended June 30, 2023 primarily included approximately $155 million associated with the settlement of certain legacy PFAS related legal matters that are subject to the MOU, including the Water System MOU. The after-tax charges recognized during the three and six months ended June 30, 2022, primarily included approximately $23 million and $27 million, respectively, related to the MOU, driven by the environmental remediation accrual at Chemours’ Fayetteville Works facility for estimated costs for offsite water systems and on-site surface water and groundwater remediation to address and abate PFAS discharges arising out of pre-July 1, 2015 conduct. Litigation The company is subject to various legal proceedings, including, but not limited to, product liability, intellectual property, antitrust, commercial, property damage, personal injury, environmental and regulatory matters arising out of the normal course of its current businesses or legacy EIDP businesses unrelated to Corteva’s current businesses but allocated to Corteva as part of the separation of Corteva from DuPont. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these various proceedings, as considerable uncertainty exists. The company records accruals for legal matters when the information available indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Accruals may reflect the impact and status of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice from counsel and other information and events that may pertain to a particular matter. For the litigation matters discussed below, management believes that it is reasonably possible that the company could incur liabilities in excess of amounts accrued, the ultimate liability for which could be material to the results of operations and the cash flows in the period recognized. However, the company is unable to estimate the possible loss beyond amounts accrued due to various reasons, including, among others, that the underlying matters are either in early stages and/or have significant factual issues to be resolved. In addition, even when the company believes it has substantial defenses, the company may consider settlement of matters if it believes it is in the best interest of the company. Lorsban® Lawsuits As of June 30, 2023, there were pending personal injury lawsuits filed and additional asserted claims against the former Dow Agrosciences LLC, alleging injuries related to chlorpyrifos exposure, the active ingredient in Lorsban®, an insecticide used by commercial farms for field fruit, nut and vegetable crops. Corteva ended its production of Lorsban® in 2020. Chlorpyrifos products are restricted-use pesticides, which are not available for purchase or use by the general public, and may only be sold to, and used by, certified applicators or someone under the certified applicator's direct supervision. These lawsuits do not relate to Dursban®, a residential type chlorpyrifos product that was authorized for indoor purposes, which was discontinued over two decades ago prior to the Merger and Corteva’s formation and Separation. Claimants allege personal injury, including autism, developmental delays and/or decreased neurologic function, resulting from farm worker exposure and bystander drift and in utero exposure to chlorpyrifos. Certain claimants have also put forth remediation claims due to alleged property contamination from chlorpyrifos. As of June 30, 2023, an accrual has been established for the estimated resolution of certain claims. Federal Trade Commission Investigation On May 26, 2020, Corteva received a subpoena from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) directing it to submit documents pertaining to its crop protection products generally, as well as business plans, rebate programs, offers, pricing and marketing materials specifically related to its acetochlor, oxamyl, rimsulfuron and other related products in order to determine whether Corteva engaged in unfair methods of competition through anticompetitive conduct. Corteva has fully cooperated with all requests related to this subpoena. On September 29, 2022, the FTC, along with ten state attorneys general in California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Texas, filed a lawsuit against Corteva and another competitor alleging the parties engaged in unfair methods of competition, unlawful conditioning of payments, unreasonably restrained trade, and have an unlawful monopoly (the “FTC lawsuit”). In December 2022, attorneys general in Tennessee and Washington joined the FTC lawsuit and the Arkansas state attorney general filed a separate lawsuit against Corteva and another competitor based on the allegations set forth in the FTC lawsuit. Several proposed private class action lawsuits were also filed in federal court alleging anticompetitive conduct based on the allegations set forth in the FTC lawsuit. In February 2023, most of these private lawsuits were centralized into a multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. We believe any such lawsuits related to Corteva’s business practices are without merit. Litigation related to legacy EIDP businesses unrelated to Corteva’s current businesses For purposes of this report, the term PFOA means collectively perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts, including the ammonium salt and does not distinguish between the two forms, and PFAS, including PFOA, PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid), GenX and other perfluorinated chemicals and compounds ("PFCs"). EIDP is a party to various legal proceedings relating to the use of PFOA by its former Performance Chemicals segment for which potential liabilities would be subject to the cost sharing arrangement under the MOU as long as it remains effective. Leach Settlement and Ohio MDL Settlement EIDP has residual liabilities under its 2004 settlement of a West Virginia state court class action, Leach v. EIDP, which alleged that PFOA from EIDP’s former Washington Works facility had contaminated area drinking water supplies and affected the health of area residents. The settlement class has about 80,000 members. In addition to relief that was provided to class members years ago, the settlement requires EIDP to continue providing PFOA water treatment to six area water districts and private well users and to fund, through an escrow account, up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members. As of June 30, 2023, approximately $2 million had been disbursed from the account since its establishment in 2012 and the remaining balance is approximately $1 million. The Leach settlement permits class members to pursue personal injury claims for six health conditions (and no others) that an expert panel appointed under the settlement reported in 2012 had a “probable link” (as defined in the settlement) with PFOA: pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. After the panel reported its findings, approximately 3,550 personal injury lawsuits were filed in federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (“Ohio MDL”). The Ohio MDL was settled in early 2017 for approximately $670 million in cash, with Chemours and EIDP (without indemnification from Chemours) each paying half. Post-MDL Settlement PFOA Personal Injury Claims The 2017 Ohio MDL settlement did not resolve claims of plaintiffs who did not have claims in the Ohio MDL or whose claims are based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. The first was a consolidated trial of two cases; the first, a kidney cancer case, which resulted in a hung jury, while the second, Travis and Julie Abbott v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (the “Abbott Case”), a testicular cancer case, resulted in a jury verdict of $40 million in compensatory damages and $10 million for loss of consortium, plus interest. The loss of consortium award was subsequently reduced to $250,000 in accordance with state law limitations. Following entry of the judgment by the court, EIDP filed post-trial motions to reduce the verdict, and to appeal the verdict on the basis of procedural and substantive legal errors made by the trial court. After the denial of the company’s appeal and request for en banc review, a petition seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court was filed in June 2023. Defense costs and future liabilities that may arise from these cases are subject to the terms and conditions of the MOU and the Corteva Separation Agreement. As of June 30, 2023, an accrual was established for this matter. In January 2021, Chemours, DuPont and Corteva agreed to settle the remaining approximately 95 matters, as well as unfiled matters, remaining in the Ohio MDL, with the exception of the Abbott case, for $83 million, with Chemours contributing $29 million to the settlement, and DuPont and Corteva contributing $27 million each. The company paid $27 million during the year ended December 31, 2021. As agreed to in the settlement, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion to dissolve the MDL. In December 2022, the motion to dissolve the MDL was denied. Other PFOA Matters EIDP is a party to other PFOA lawsuits involving claims for property damage, medical monitoring and personal injury. Defense costs and any future liabilities that may arise out of these lawsuits are subject to the MOU and the cost sharing arrangement disclosed above. Under the MOU, fraudulent conveyance claims associated with these matters are not qualified expenses, unless Corteva, Inc. and EIDP would prevail on the merits of these claims. EIDP did not make firefighting foams, PFOS, or PFOS products. While EIDP made surfactants and intermediaries that some manufacturers used in making foams, which may have contained PFOA as an unintended byproduct or an impurity, EIDP’s products were not formulated with PFOA, nor was PFOA an ingredient of these products. EIDP has never made or sold PFOA as a commercial product. In March 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") published proposed rules establishing a maximum contaminate level of four parts per trillion for PFOA in drinking water. If such rules are adopted, a legal mandate with respect to acceptable PFOA levels in drinking water would be established. Aqueous Firefighting Foams. Approximately 4,700 cases have been filed against 3M and other defendants, including EIDP and Chemours, and some including Corteva and DuPont, alleging PFOS or PFOA environmental contamination and/or personal injury from the use of aqueous firefighting foams. The vast majority of these cases have been transferred to a multi-district litigation proceeding in federal district court in South Carolina (“SC MDL”). Approximately 4,100 of these cases were filed on behalf of firefighters who allege personal injuries (primarily kidney and testicular cancer) as a result of exposure to aqueous firefighting foams (“AFFF”). Approximately 280 of these cases were filed by water systems. Most of these recent cases assert claims that the EIDP and Chemours separation constituted a fraudulent conveyance. On June 1, 2023, Corteva, EIDP, Inc., DuPont, and Chemours (collectively, the “settling companies”) entered into a binding agreement in principle (the “Water System MOU”) 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, including, but not limited to the AFFF claims in the SC MDL. The Water System MOU remains subject to being finalized by a definitive agreement and approved by the federal district court in South Carolina (the “SC Court”). PFAS, as defined in the settlement, includes PFOA and HFPO-DA among a broad range of fluorinated organic substances. Under the Water System MOU, the settling companies will collectively establish and contribute a total of $1.185 billion to a settlement fund (“water district settlement fund”). Contribution rates will be consistent with the settling companies’ 2021 MOU and the Letter Agreement, with Chemours contributing 50 percent, and DuPont and Corteva collectively contributing the remaining 50 percent. The settlement amounts will be funded by the settling companies in full and deposited into the water district settlement fund within ten business days following preliminary approval of the settlement by the SC Court. The settling companies expect to utilize the escrow account balance established by the 2021 MOU, among other sources, to make their respective contributions to the water district settlement fund. In exchange for the payment to the water district settlement fund, the settling companies will receive a complete release of the claims described below from the Class (as defined below). The class represented by the Water System MOU 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 (“UCMR 5”) or other applicable federal or state law (the “Class”). Approximately 88 percent of the U.S. is served by systems required to test under UCMR 5. The Class does not include 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, unless they otherwise request to be included, water systems in the lower Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina. On June 30, 2023, the settling parties submitted to the SC Court for preliminary approval a definitive agreement, followed by a motion seeking certification of the proposed settlement class, to effectuate the terms of the Water System MOU on July 10, 2023. The definitive agreement will address the timing and logistics of the settlement payment and conditions under which the settlement might not proceed, including a walk-away right that enables the settling companies to terminate the settlement if more than a confidential, agreed number of class members opt out. Final approval of the settlement is expected no sooner than six months after preliminary approval, which is expected in the third quarter of 2023. As part of the final approval process, the SC Court will establish a timetable for notice to class members, for hearings on approval, and for class members to opt out of the settlement. A court-appointed claims administrator, under the oversight of a court-appointed special master, will be responsible for the management, allocation and distribution of the water district settlement fund. Class counsel, subject to the settling companies’ consent, will nominate the persons who, if approved by the SC Court, will serve as claims administrator and special master. The Water System MOU was entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or fault by Corteva, EIDP, or the other settling companies. As of June 30, 2023, an accrual has been established for this settlement. If a settlement cannot be finalized and approved, and plaintiffs elect to pursue their claims in court, the settling companies will continue to assert their strong legal defenses in pending litigation. New Jersey. In late March of 2019, the New Jersey State Attorney General filed four lawsuits against EIDP, Chemours, and others alleging that operations at and discharges from former EIDP sites in New Jersey (Chambers Works, Pompton Lakes, Parlin and Repauno) damaged the State’s natural resources. Two of these lawsuits (those involving the Chambers Works and Parlin sites) allege contamination from PFAS. The Ridgewood Water District in New Jersey filed suit in the first quarter 2019 against EIDP, Chemours, and others alleging losses related to the investigation, remediation and monitoring of polyfluorinated surfactants, including PFOA, in water supplies. DuPont and Corteva were subsequently added as defendants to these lawsuits. These lawsuits include claims under the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act ("ISRA") and for fraudulent conveyance. Beginning in April 2023, the lawsuits have been stayed subject to a court appointed mediation. EIDP and Chemours are also defendants in two lawsuits by a private water utility provider in New Jersey and New York alleging damages from PFAS releases into the environment, that impacted water sources that the utilities use to provide water, as well as products liability, negligence, nuisance, and trespass claims. The court dismissed the New York plaintiff's trespass claims and has limited plaintiffs’ nuisance claims to abatement damages. Ohio. EIDP is a defendant in three lawsuits, including an action by the State of Ohio based on alleged damage to natural resources, and an action by the City of Dayton claiming losses related to the investigation, remediation and monitoring of PFAS in water supplies. While currently in mediation, the trial with respect to the natural resources lawsuit is scheduled for June 2024. The third lawsuit, a putative nationwide class action ("the Hardwick Class Action") brought on behalf of anyone who has detectable levels of PFAS in their blood serum seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including the establishment of a “PFAS Science Panel.” In March 2022, the trial court certified a class covering anyone subject to Ohio laws having minimal levels of PFOA plus at least one other PFAS in their blood. The trial court requested further briefing on whether the class should be extended to include other states that recognize analogous claims for relief. Because EIDP and the other defendants were granted permission by the court to appeal the class certification decision, further briefing on the extension of the class for the trial court has been paused subject to the outcome of the appeal. New York. EIDP is a defendant in about 45 lawsuits, including a putative class action (the "Baker Class Action"), brought by persons who live in and around Hoosick Falls, New York. These lawsuits assert claims for medical monitoring, property damage and personal injury based on alleged PFOA releases from manufacturing facilities owned and operated by co-defendants in Hoosick Falls. The lawsuits allege that EIDP and others supplied materials used at these facilities resulting in PFOA air and water contamination. A court approved settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the other co-defendants regarding the Baker Class Action case. In September 2022, the class certification of the Baker Class Action was granted, with the court certifying three separate classes consisting of a private well property damage class, a medical monitoring class and a nuisance class. EIDP will challenge the certification, and continue to defend itself on the merits of the case, while seeking an out of court resolution. With the settlement or tentative settlement of approximately 30 of the personal injury lawsuits, an accrual was established for this matter as of June 30, 2023. EIDP is also one of more than 10 defendants in a lawsuit brought by the Town of East Hampton, New York alleging PFOA and PFOS contamination of the town’s well water. Additionally, EIDP along with Chemours and others, have been named defendants in complaints filed by 20 water districts in Nassau County, New York alleging that the drinking water they provide to customers is contaminated with PFAS and seeking reimbursement for clean-up costs. The water district complaints also include allegations of fraudulent transfer. Other Natural Resource Damage Cases. In addition to the natural resource cases in Ohio, New Jersey, and New York, 24 states and three U.S. territories, have filed lawsuits against EIDP, Chemours, and others, claiming, among other things, PFC (including PFOA) contamination of groundwater and drinking water. The complaints seek reimbursement for past and future costs to investigate and remediate the alleged contamination and compensation for the loss of value and use of the state’s natural resources. Due to overlapping AFFF allegations, virtually all of these cases have been transferred, or are pending transfer to the SC MDL. These cases are largely in the discovery phase. In addition to the cases in New Jersey and Ohio, the natural resource case in North Carolina is currently in mediation. On July 13, 2021, Chemours, DuPont, EIDP and Corteva entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Delaware reflecting the companies’ and the State’s agreement to settle and fully resolve claims alleged against the companies regarding their historical Delaware operations, manufacturing, use and disposal of all chemical compounds, including PFAS. Under the settlement, if the companies, individually or jointly, within 8 years of the settlement, 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 million, the companies shall make a supplemental payment directly to the Natural Resources and Sustainability Trust (the "NRS Trust") in an amount equal to such other states’ recovery in excess of $50 million ("Supplemental Payment"). Supplemental Payment(s), if any, will not exceed $25 million in the aggregate. All amounts paid by the companies under the settlement are subject to the MOU and the Corteva Separation Agreement. Under the settlement, if the state sues other parties and those parties seek contribution from the companies, the companies will have protection from contribution up to the amounts previously paid under the settlement agreement. The companies will also receive a credit up to the amount of the payment if the state seeks natural resource damage claims against the companies outside the scope of the settlement’s release of claims. Netherlands. In April 2021, four municipalities in the Netherlands filed complaints alleging contamination of land and groundwater resulting from the emission of PFOA and GenX by Corteva, DuPont and Chemours. The municipalities seek to recover costs incurred due to the alleged emissions, including damages for investigation costs, construction project delays, depreciation of land, soil remediation, liabilities to contractors, and attorneys’ fees. A hearing on the merits occurred in March 2023, and a ruling is expected by September 2023. Carpet Mill Cases. The city of Rome, GA alleges defendants, including EIDP, Chemours, other chemical suppliers and large carpet mills, discharged PFAS in their industrial wastewater, and that this wastewater after treatment, resulted in PFAS contamination of drinking water supplies. The city of Rome seeks damages for the cost of the installation of a water treatment system capable of removing PFCs from the water, injunctive relief requiring the defendants to clean up the contamination in the river ways, and punitive damages. Additionally, the city of Rome has sent a demand to EIDP asserting damages for the construction of a new utilities wastewater treatment system and upgrades to the city's water treatment system, along with future monitoring costs. The City of Rome case has been settled and an accrual was established as of June 30, 2023. The Centre Alabama water district carpet case, which makes similar allegations, is set for trial in November 2023. Fayetteville Works Facility, North Carolina Prior to the separation of Chemours, EIDP introduced GenX as a polymerization processing aid and a replacement for PFOA at the Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County, North Carolina. The facility is now owned and operated by Chemours, which continues to manufacture and use GenX. In June 2022, the EPA issued a final health advisory for drinking water related to GenX. In July 2022, Chemours filed a petition in federal court for review of the EPA's GenX compounds health advisory. At June 30, 2023, several actions are pending in federal court against Chemours and EIDP relating to PFC discharges from the Fayetteville Works facility. One of these is a consolidated putative class action that asserts claims for medical monitoring and property damage on behalf of putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or who draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River. Another action is a consolidated action brought by various North Carolina water authorities, including the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (“CFPUA”) and Brunswick County, that seek actual and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. In a state court action over approximately 100 private property owners near the Fayetteville Works facility filed a complaint against Chemours and EIDP in May 2020. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for their claims of private nuisance, trespass, and negligence allegedly caused by release of certain PFCs. In March 2023, CFPUA filed a Delaware Chancery Court action claiming the spin-off of Chemours and the Dow and historical DuPont merger were unlawful and should be voided, so CFPUA is not precluded from recovering amounts its entitled in its pending litigation. In June 2023, EIDP filed a motion to dismiss the Delaware Chancery Court action based upon failure to state a claim under Delaware law. Generally, site-related expenses related to GenX claims are subject to the cost sharing arrangements as defined in the MOU. Environmental Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated based on current law and existing technologies. These obligations are included in accrued and other current liabilities and other noncurrent obligations in the interim Consolidated Balance Sheets. It is reasonably possible that environmental remediation and restoration costs in excess of amounts accrued could have a material impact on the company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Inherent uncertainties exist in these estimates primarily due to unknown conditions, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies for handling site remediation and restoration. For a discussion of the allocation of environmental liabilities under the Chemours Separation Agreement and the Corteva Separation Agreement, see page 23. The accrued environmental obligations and indemnification assets include the following:
| As of June 30, 2023
(In millions) | Indemnification Asset | Accrual balance 3 | Potential exposure above amount accrued 3
Environmental Remediation Stray Liabilities |  |  |
Chemours related obligations - subject to indemnity 1,2 | $ | 152 |  | $ | 152 |  | $ | 281 |
Other discontinued or divested businesses obligations 1 | 24 |  | 68 |  | 194 |
Environmental remediation liabilities primarily related to DuPont - subject to indemnity from DuPont 2 | 58 |  | 61 |  | 63 |
Environmental remediation liabilities not subject to indemnity | — |  | 108 |  | 75 |
Indemnification liabilities related to the MOU 4 | 25 |  | 119 |  | 31 |
Total | $ | 259 |  | $ | 508 |  | $ | 644 |
1.Represents liabilities that are subject to the $200 million threshold and sharing arrangements as discussed on page 24, under the header "Corteva Separation Agreement." 2.The company has recorded an indemnification asset related to these accruals, including $35 million related to the Superfund sites. 3.Accrual balance represents management’s best estimate of the costs of remediation and restoration, although it is reasonably possible that the potential exposure, as indicated, could range above the amounts accrued, as there are inherent uncertainties in these estimates. Accrual balance includes $59 million for remediation of Superfund sites. Amounts do not include possible impacts from the remediation elements of the EPA's October 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap (as applicable), except as disclosed on page 24 relating to Chemours' remediation activities at the Fayetteville Works Facility pursuant to the Consent Order with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("NC DEQ"). 4.Represents liabilities that are subject to the $150 million threshold and sharing agreements as discussed on page 23, under the header "Chemours / Performance Chemicals." Chambers Works, New Jersey On January 28, 2022, the State of New Jersey filed a request for a preliminary injunction against EIDP and Chemours seeking the establishment of a Remediation Funding Source ("RFS") in an amount exceeding $900 million for environmental remediation at EIDP's former Chambers Works facility in New Jersey. The RFS primarily relates to non-PFAS remediation, which is not subject to the MOU. Chemours has accepted indemnity and defense for these matters, while reserving rights and declining EIDP's demand relating to the ISRA and fraudulent transfer matters as alleged under the existing New Jersey natural resource lawsuits discussed on page 28. Further ruling on this proceeding has been stayed subject to court appointed mediation. Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy, AltEn Facility The EPA and the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (“NDEE”) are pursuing investigations, response and removal actions, litigation and enforcement action related to an ethanol plant located near Mead, Nebraska and owned and operated by AltEn LLC (“AltEn”). The agencies have alleged violations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and other federal and state laws stemming from AltEn’s lack of compliance with the terms and conditions of its operating permits and other regulatory requirements. Corteva is one of six seed companies, who were customers of AltEn (collectively, the "Facility Response Group"), participating in the NDEE’s Voluntary Cleanup Program to address certain interim remediation needs at the site. In February 2022, the Facility Response Group filed a lawsuit against AltEn and certain of its affiliates to preserve certain contractual and common law indemnification claims. As of June 30, 2023, an accrual was established for Corteva’s estimated voluntary contribution to the solid waste and wastewater remedial action plans for the AltEn location.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration