DuPont 2009 Annual Report Download - page 88

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements (continued)
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
The other two purported class actions were filed in New Jersey. One was filed in federal court on behalf of individuals
who allegedly drank water contaminated by releases from DuPont’s Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New Jersey.
The second was filed in state court on behalf of customers serviced primarily by the Pennsville Township Water
Department and was removed to New Jersey federal district court on DuPont’s motion. The New Jersey cases have
been combined for purposes of discovery and the complaints have been amended to allege that drinking water had
been contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.04 ppb. In December 2008, the court denied class action status in both
cases, but ordered additional briefing on certain issues. In October 2009, the Court granted class certification for
certain sub-classes regarding public and private nuisance claims, while denying class certification for all other claims.
The court also certified a legal question related to strict liability. In the fourth quarter 2009, plaintiffs in both cases filed
motions for leave to add a claim under RCRA alleging ‘‘imminent and substantial endangerment to health and or the
environment’’ based on detection of PFOA in public and private water wells. The motions will be decided before the
June 2010 trial date recently set for both cases.
DuPont denies the claims alleged in these civil drinking water actions and is defending itself vigorously.
While DuPont believes that it is reasonably possible that it could incur losses related to PFOA matters in addition to
those matters discussed above for which it has established accruals, a range of such losses, if any, cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time.
Consumer Products Class Actions
Number
of Cases
Balance at January 1, 2007 22
Filed 1
Resolved -
Balance at December 31, 2007 23
Filed -
Resolved (1)
Balance at December 31, 2008 22
Filed -
Resolved (22)
Balance at December 31, 2009 -
In the second quarter 2009, plaintiffs’ counsel dismissed all twenty-two purported class actions that were filed against
DuPont on behalf of consumers who purchased cookware with Teflon non-stick coating in federal district courts.
In December 2005, a motion was filed by a single named plaintiff in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec,
Canada seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of all Quebec consumers who have purchased or
used kitchen items, household appliances or food-packaging containing Teflon or Zonyl non-stick coatings. In the
third quarter 2009, the Court dismissed the motion.
Elastomers Antitrust Matters
Since 2002, the U.S., European Union (EU) and Canadian antitrust authorities have investigated the synthetic rubber
markets for possible violations. These investigations included DuPont Dow Elastomers, LLC (DDE), as a result of its
participation in the polychloroprene (PCP) and ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) markets. DDE was a joint
venture between The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) and DuPont.
In April 2004, DuPont and Dow entered into a series of agreements under which DuPont obtained complete control
over directing DDE’s response to these investigations and the related litigation and DuPont agreed to a
disproportionate share of the venture’s liabilities and costs related to these matters. Consequently, DuPont bears any
potential liabilities and costs up to the initial $150. Dow is obligated to indemnify DuPont for up to $72.5 by paying 15 to
30 percent toward liabilities and costs in excess of $150. On June 30, 2005, DDE became a wholly owned subsidiary of
DuPont and was renamed DuPont Performance Elastomers, LLC (DPE).
F-30