Note 14 – Commitments and contingencies:
General
We are involved in various environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to our current and former businesses. At least quarterly our management discusses and evaluates the status of any pending litigation or claim to which we are a party or which has been asserted against us. The factors considered in such evaluation include, among other things, the nature of such pending cases and claims, the status of such pending cases and claims, the advice of legal counsel and our experience in similar cases and claims (if any). Based on such evaluation, we make a determination as to whether we believe (i) it is probable a loss has been incurred, and if so if the amount of such loss (or a range of loss) is reasonably estimable, or (ii) it is reasonably possible but not probable a loss has been incurred, and if so, if the amount of such loss (or a range of loss) is reasonably estimable, or (iii) the probability a loss has been incurred is remote.
Lead pigment litigation
Our former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint. We, 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.
We believe these actions are without merit, and we intend 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 we are a party, and with respect to all such lead pigment litigation cases to which we are a party, we believe liability to us that may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because:
| ● | we have 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 us, and |
| ● | we have never ultimately been found liable with respect to any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a thirty-year period for which we were previously a party and for which we have 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 us 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, we have three annual installment payments remaining ($12.0 million for the next two installments and $16.7 million for the final installment). Our 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 us (and any amounts on deposit in excess of the final payment would be returned to us). See Note 16 to our 2022 Annual Report.