Note 16 – Commitments and contingencies:
Lead pigment litigation – NL
NL’s former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint. NL, other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint (together, the “former pigment manufacturers”), and the Lead Industries Association (LIA), which discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims.
The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for educational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seek compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages are generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages are unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law. A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings or a trial verdict in favor of either the defendants or the plaintiffs.
NL believes these actions are without merit, and intends to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and to defend against all actions vigorously. We do not believe it is probable we have incurred any liability with respect to pending lead pigment litigation cases to which NL is a party, and with respect to all such lead pigment litigation cases to which NL is a party, we believe liability to NL that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because:
| ● | NL has never settled any of the market share, intentional tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, or statutory cases (other than the Santa Clara case discussed below), |
| ● | no final, non-appealable adverse judgments have ever been entered against NL, and |
| ● | NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a thirty-year period for which NL was previously a party and for which NL has been dismissed without any finding of liability. |
Accordingly, we have not accrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, or those asserted as class actions. In addition, we have determined that liability to NL which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time because there is no prior history of a loss of this nature on which an estimate could be made and there is no substantive information available upon which an estimate could be based.
In the terms of the County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657) global settlement agreement, NL has three annual installment payments remaining ($12.0 million for the next two installments and $16.7 million for the final installment). NL’s final installment will be made with funds already on deposit at the court, which are included in noncurrent restricted cash on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, that are committed to the settlement, including all accrued interest at the date of payment, with any remaining balance to be paid by NL (and any amounts on deposit in excess of the final payment would be returned to NL). See Note 18 to our 2022 Annual Report.
New cases may continue to be filed against NL. We do not know if we will incur liability in the future in respect to any of the pending or possible litigation in view of the inherent uncertainties involved in court and jury rulings. In the future, if new information regarding such matters becomes available to us (such as a final, non-appealable adverse verdict against NL or otherwise ultimately being found liable with respect to such matters), at that time we would consider such information in evaluating any remaining cases then-pending against NL as to whether it might then have become probable we have incurred liability with respect to these matters, and whether such liability, if any, could have become reasonably estimable. The resolution of any of these cases could result in the recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse impact on our net income for the interim or annual period during which such liability is recognized and a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition and liquidity.