DuPont 2010 Annual Report Download - page 88

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 88 of the 2010 DuPont 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.

Page out of 117

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements (continued)
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
begun in the Ohio class action. In the West Virginia class action, the court entered judgment for DuPont in the first
quarter 2010. Plaintiffs’ appeal of the matter was heard by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in late January 2011.
DuPont denies the claims alleged in these civil drinking water actions and is defending itself vigorously.
Environmental Actions
Of the total accrual, $4 is to fund DuPont’s obligations under agreements with the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. In 2005, the company and EPA entered an
agreement settling allegations that DuPont failed to comply with technical reporting requirements under the Toxic
Substances Control Act and RCRA. Under the settlement, DuPont paid a fine of $10.25 and is undertaking two
Supplemental Environmental Projects. In 2009, EPA and DuPont entered a Consent Order under the Safe Drinking
Water Act which obligates DuPont to survey, sample and test drinking water in and around the company’s Washington
Works site. If tests indicate the presence of PFOA in drinking water at the national Provisional Health Advisory for PFOA
of 0.40 ppb or greater, the company will offer treatment or an alternative supply of drinking water.
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.
Benlate
In 1991, DuPont began receiving claims by growers that use of Benlate50 DF fungicide had caused crop damage.
DuPont has since been served with thousands of lawsuits, most of which have been disposed of through trial, dismissal
or settlement.
At December 31, 2010, there were nine cases in Florida courts alleging that Benlatecaused crop damage. At the 2006
trial of two cases involving twenty-seven Costa Rican fern growers, the plaintiffs sought damages in the range of $270
to $400. A $56 judgment was rendered against the company, but was reduced to $24 on DuPont’s motion. In the fourth
quarter 2009, on DuPont’s motion, the judgment was reversed, vacated and the cases were remanded to be tried
separately or in small related groups. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of the decision. In December 2010, the
appellate court upheld the decision to try the cases separately. The appellate court also affirmed dismissal of the
verdicts for seven of the twenty-seven fern growers on grounds that their claims were barred by the statute of
limitations. Plaintiffs are seeking review by the Florida Supreme Court. One other crop case is scheduled for trial in June
2011. On January 19, 2011, the court entered an order in five of the remaining crop cases striking DuPont’s pleadings.
The order essentially enters judgment against DuPont as to liability. DuPont will appeal, but cannot do so until a
damages trial results in a monetary judgment against it.
Two cases alleging damage to shrimping operations were resolved in a single binding arbitration during the fourth
quarter 2010. The arbiter awarded plaintiffs a total of $19 in compensatory damages plus attorneys’ fees and expenses.
DuPont paid the compensatory damages in December 2010 and will pay $8.5 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
In January 2009, a case was filed in Florida state court claiming that plaintiff’s exposure to Benlateallegedly
contaminated with other fungicides and herbicides, caused plaintiff’s kidney cancer and pancreatic and brain tumors.
The case was tried to a verdict in September 2010 in federal court, to which it had been removed on DuPont’s motion,
and the jury unanimously rejected allegations that exposure to Benlatecaused plaintiff’s diseases. In December 2010,
the court denied plaintiff’s post trial motions. Plaintiff has appealed.
The company does not believe that Benlatecaused the damages alleged in each of these cases and denies the
allegations of fraud and misconduct. The company continues to defend itself in ongoing matters. As of December 31,
2010, the company has incurred costs and expenses of approximately $2,000 associated with these matters, but does
not expect additional significant costs or expenses associated with the remaining twelve cases. At December 31, 2010,
the company has accruals of about $9 related to Benlate. The company does not expect losses in excess of the
accruals, if any, to be material.
F-29