3M 2015 Annual Report Download - page 109
Download and view the complete annual report
Please find page 109 of the 2015 3M annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.TableofContents
InOctober2015,WestMorgan-EastLawrenceWater&SewerAuthority(“WaterAuthority”)filedanindividualcomplaintagainst
3MCompany,Dyneon,L.L.C,andDaikinAmerica,Inc.,intheU.S.DistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofAlabama.The
complaintalsoincludesrepresentativeplaintiffswhobroughtthecomplaintonbehalfofthemselves,andaclassofallownersand
possessorsofpropertywhousewaterprovidedbytheWaterAuthorityandfivelocalwaterworkstowhichtheWaterAuthority
supplieswater(collectively,the“WaterUtilities”).Thecomplaintseekscompensatoryandpunitivedamagesandinjunctiverelief
basedonallegationsthatthedefendants’chemicals,includingPFOAandPFOSfromtheirmanufacturingprocessesinDecatur,have
contaminatedthewaterintheTennesseeRiveratthewaterintake,andthatthechemicalscannotberemovedbythewatertreatment
processesutilizedbytheWaterAuthority.
InDecember2010,theStateofMinnesota,byitsAttorneyGeneralLoriSwanson,actinginitscapacityastrusteeofthenatural
resourcesoftheStateofMinnesota,filedalawsuitinHennepinCountyDistrictCourtagainst3Mtorecoverdamages(including
unspecifiedassessmentcostsandreasonableattorney’sfees)forallegedinjuryto,destructionof,andlossofuseofcertainofthe
State’snaturalresourcesundertheMinnesotaEnvironmentalResponseandLiabilityAct(MERLA)andtheMinnesotaWater
PollutionControlAct(MWPCA),aswellasstatutorynuisanceandcommonlawclaimsoftrespass,nuisance,andnegligencewith
respecttothepresenceofPFCsinthegroundwater,surfacewater,fishorotheraquaticlife,andsediments(the“NRDLawsuit”).The
StatealsoseeksdeclarationsunderMERLAthat3MisresponsibleforalldamagestheStatemaysufferinthefutureforinjuriesto
naturalresourcesfromreleasesofPFCsintotheenvironment,andunderMWPCAthat3Misresponsibleforcompensationforfuture
lossordestructionoffish,aquaticlife,andotherdamages.
InNovember2011,theMetropolitanCouncilfiledamotiontointerveneandacomplaintintheNRDLawsuitseekingcompensatory
damagesandotherlegal,declaratoryandequitablerelief,includingreasonableattorneys’fees,forcostsandfeesthatthe
MetropolitanCouncilallegesitwillberequiredtoassessatsometimeinthefutureiftheMPCAimposesrestrictionson
MetropolitanCouncil’sPFOSdischargestotheMississippiRiver,includingtheinstallationandmaintenanceofawatertreatment
system.TheMetropolitanCouncil’sinterventionmotionwasbasedonseveraltheories,includingcommonlawnegligence,and
statutoryclaimsunderMERLAforresponsecosts,andundertheMinnesotaEnvironmentalRightsAct(MERA)fordeclaratoryand
equitablereliefagainst3MforPFOSandotherPFCpollutionofthewatersandsedimentsoftheMississippiRiver.3Mdidnot
objecttothemotiontointervene.InJanuary2012,3MansweredtheMetropolitanCouncil’scomplaintandfiledacounterclaim
allegingthattheMetropolitanCouncildischargesPFCstotheMississippiRiveranddischargesPFC-containingsludgeandbiosolids
fromoneormoreofitswastewatertreatmentplantsontoagriculturallandsandlocalarealandfills.Accordingly,3Mrequestedthatif
thecourtfindsthattheStateisentitledtoanyofthedamagestheStateseeks,3Mseekscontributionandapportionmentfromthe
MetropolitanCouncil,includingattorneys’fees,underMERLA,andcontributionfromandliabilityfortheMetropolitanCouncil’s
proportionalshareofdamagesawardedtotheStateundertheMWPCA,aswellasunderstatutorynuisanceandcommonlaw
theoriesoftrespass,nuisance,andnegligence.3MalsoseeksdeclaratoryreliefunderMERA.
InApril2012,3MfiledamotiontodisqualifytheStateofMinnesota’scounsel,Covington&Burling,LLP(Covington).In
October2012,thecourtgranted3M’smotiontodisqualifyCovingtonascounseltotheStateandtheStateandCovingtonappealed
thecourt’sdisqualificationtotheMinnesotaCourtofAppeals.InJuly2013,theMinnesotaCourtofAppealsaffirmedthedistrict
court’sdisqualificationorder.InOctober2013,theMinnesotaSupremeCourtgrantedboththeState’sandCovington’spetitionfor
reviewofthedecisionoftheMinnesotaCourtofAppeals.InApril2014,theMinnesotaSupremeCourtaffirmedinpart,reversedin
part,andremandedthecasetothedistrictcourtforfurtherproceedings.Thedistrictcourttookevidenceonthedisqualification
issuesatahearinginOctober2015.InFebruary2016,thedistrictcourtruledthatCovingtonviolatedtheprofessionalethicsrule
againstrepresentingaclient(heretheStateofMinnesota)inthesameorsubstantiallyrelatedmatterwherethatperson’sinterestsare
materiallyadversetotheinterestsofaformerclient(3M).Thedistrictcourt,however,denied3M’smotiontodisqualifyCovington
becauseitfurtherfoundthat3Mimpliedlywaivedbydelayingtoasserttheconflict.3Misreviewingthedistrictcourt’sopinionto
determinenextsteps.Otheractivityinthecasehadbeenstayedpendingtheoutcomeofthedisqualificationissue.Inaseparatebut
relatedaction,theCompanyfiledsuitagainstCovingtonforbreachofitsfiduciarydutiestotheCompanyandforbreachofcontract
arisingoutofCovington’srepresentationoftheStateofMinnesotaintheNRDLawsuit.
109