Under the DWDP Separation and Distribution Agreement, liabilities, including cost and expenses, associated with litigation and environmental matters that primarily related to the materials science business, the agriculture business or the specialty products business were generally allocated to or retained by Dow, Corteva or the Company, respectively, through retention, assumption or indemnification. Related to the foregoing, at September 30, 2020, DuPont has recorded (i) a liability of $37 million (although it is reasonably possible that the ultimate cost could range up to $108 million above the amount accrued) for retained or assumed environmental liabilities, (ii) a liability of $2 million for retained or assumed litigation liabilities, and (iii) an indemnification liability related to legal and environmental matters of $58 million. Liabilities associated with discontinued and/or divested operations and businesses of Historical Dow generally were allocated to or retained by Dow. The allocation of liabilities associated with the discontinued and/or divested operations and businesses of Historical EID is discussed below.

Under the DWDP Separation and Distribution Agreement and the Letter Agreement between Corteva and DuPont, DDOB liabilities of Historical EID primarily related to Historical EID’s agriculture business were allocated to or retained by Corteva and those primarily related to Historical EID’s specialty products business were allocated to or retained by the Company. Historical EID DDOB liabilities not primarily related to Historical EID’s agriculture business or specialty products business (“Stray Liabilities”), are allocated as follows:

•Generally, indemnifiable losses as defined in the DWDP Separation and Distribution Agreement, (“Indemnifiable Losses”) for Stray Liabilities, to the extent they do not arise out of actions related to or resulting from the development, testing, manufacture or sale of PFAS, defined below, (“Non-PFAS Stray Liabilities”) that are known as of April 1, 2019 are borne by Corteva up to a specified amount set forth in the schedules to the DWDP Separation and Distribution Agreement and/or Letter Agreement. Non-PFAS Stray Liabilities in excess of such specified amounts and any Non-PFAS Stray Liabilities not listed in the schedules to the DWDP Separation and Distribution Agreement or Letter Agreement are borne by Corteva and/or DuPont up to separate, aggregate thresholds of $200 million each to the extent Corteva or DuPont, as applicable, incurs an Indemnifiable Loss. Once Corteva’s or DuPont’s $200 million threshold is met, the other would generally bear all Non-PFAS Stray Liabilities until meeting its $200 million threshold. After the respective $200 million thresholds are met, DuPont will bear 71 percent of such losses and Corteva will bear 29 percent of such losses.

•Generally, Corteva and the Company will each bear 50 percent of the first $300 million (up to $150 million each) for Indemnifiable Losses arising out of actions to the extent related to or resulting from the development, testing, manufacture or sale of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances, which include collectively perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts (“PFOA”), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”) and perfluorinated chemicals and compounds (“PFCs”) (all such substances, “PFAS” and such Stray Liabilities referred to as “PFAS Stray Liabilities”). Indemnifiable Losses to the extent related to PFAS Stray Liabilities in excess of $300 million generally will be borne 71 percent by the Company and 29 percent by Corteva, unless either Corteva or DuPont has met its $200 million threshold. In that event, the other company would bear all PFAS Stray Liabilities until that company meets its $200 million threshold, at which point DuPont will bear 71 percent of such losses and Corteva will bear 29 percent of such losses.

DuPont expects to continue to incur directly and as Indemnifiable Losses, costs and expenses related to litigation defense, such as attorneys’ fees and expenses and court costs, in connection with the Stray Liabilities described below. In accordance with its accounting policy for litigation matters, the Company will expense such litigation defense costs as incurred which could be significant to the Company’s financial condition and/or cash flows in the period.

On July 1, 2015, Historical EID completed the separation of Historical EID’s Performance Chemicals segment through the spin-off of all the issued and outstanding stock of The Chemours Company (“Chemours”) to holders of Historical EID common stock. In connection with the spin, Historical EID and Chemours entered into a Separation Agreement (as amended, the "Chemours Separation Agreement"). Pursuant to the Chemours Separation Agreement, Chemours is obligated to indemnify Historical EID, including its current or former affiliates, against certain litigation, environmental and other liabilities that arose prior to the Chemours Separation. The term of this indemnification is generally indefinite and includes defense costs and expenses, as well as monetary and non-monetary settlements and judgments.

In 2017, Historical EID and Chemours amended the Chemours Separation Agreement to provide for a limited sharing of potential future PFOA liabilities for a five-year period that began on July 6, 2017. The amended agreement provides that during that five-year period, Chemours will annually pay the first $25 million of future PFOA liabilities and, if that amount is exceeded, Historical EID will pay any excess amount up to the next $25 million, with Chemours annually bearing any excess liabilities above that amount. If Historical EID were required to pay PFOA liabilities pursuant to the amended agreement, fifty percent of such obligation would be borne by the Company in accordance with the Letter Agreement. In connection with the foregoing, the Company has not recorded or paid a PFOA liability. At the end of the five-year period, this limited sharing agreement will expire, and Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the Chemours Separation Agreement will continue unchanged.

On May 13, 2019, Chemours filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Historical EID, Corteva and the Company in an attempt to limit its responsibility for the litigation and environmental liabilities allocated to and assumed by Chemours under the Chemours Separation Agreement. Chemours is asking the court to rewrite the Chemours Separation Agreement by either limiting Chemours’ liabilities or, alternatively, ordering the return to Chemours of all or a portion of a $3.91 billion dividend that Chemours paid to Historical EID, Chemours’ then-sole-shareholder, just prior to the spin of Chemours. DuPont and Corteva, acting jointly, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and initiated an arbitration of the dispute as required under the Chemours Separation Agreement. In December 2019, following argument, the Delaware Court of Chancery stayed arbitration pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2020, the Court of Chancery granted the motion to dismiss and rejected Chemours’ arguments in their entirety. Chemours filed a notice of appeal on April 17, 2020 with the Delaware Supreme Court. The Delaware Supreme Court will hear oral argument on the appeal en banc on December 2, 2020. Meanwhile, the confidential arbitration process is proceeding.

Indemnifiable Losses related to the Chemours suit are PFAS Stray Liabilities subject to the sharing arrangement between DuPont and Corteva, described above. The Company believes the probability of a final unappealable judgment of liability with respect to the Chemours suit to be remote; the defendants continue to vigorously defend full indemnity rights as set forth in the Chemours Separation Agreement.

Generally, Chemours, with reservations, including as to alleged fraudulent conveyance and voidable transactions, is defending and indemnifying Historical EID in the PFAS Matters discussed below. Although Chemours has refused the tender of the Company’s defense in the actions in which the Company has been named, DuPont believes it is remote that it will ultimately incur a liability in connection with these PFAS Matters.

In 2004, Historical EID settled a West Virginia state court class action, Leach v. DuPont, which alleged that PFOA from Historical EID’s former Washington Works facility had contaminated area drinking water supplies and affected the health of area residents. Historical EID has residual liabilities under the Leach settlement related to providing PFOA water treatment to six area water districts and private well users and to fund, through an escrow account, up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members.

Members of the Leach class have standing to pursue personal injury claims for just six health conditions that an expert panel appointed under the Leach settlement reported in 2012 had a “probable link” (as defined in the settlement) with PFOA: pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. In 2017, Chemours and Historical EID each paid $335 million to settle the multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (“Ohio MDL”), thereby resolving claims of about 3,550 plaintiffs alleging injury from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. The 2017 settlement did not resolve claims of Leach class members who did not have claims in the Ohio MDL or whose claims are based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. About 80 claims alleging personal injury, including kidney and testicular cancer claims, have been filed since the 2017 settlement. These claims are currently pending in the Ohio MDL. The first two cases, one captioned “Abbott v E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company” and the other “Swartz v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company”, involving a testicular cancer and a kidney cancer claim, respectively, proceeded to trial in January 2020. In the Abbott case, the jury returned a verdict in March 2020 against Historical EID, awarding $50 million in compensatory damages to the plaintiff and his wife, who claimed that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused him to develop testicular cancer. Historical EID will appeal the verdict. The plaintiffs also sought but were not awarded punitive damages. In the Swartz matter, the jury could not reach a verdict. Therefore, the court declared a mistrial and the matter will be retried at a later date. The trials in the cases originally scheduled for June 2020 have been further postponed from October 2020 to late November due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition to the actions described above, there several cases alleging damages to natural resources, the environment, water, and/or property as well as various other allegations. DuPont and Corteva are named or have been added as defendants in most of the actions discussed below. Such actions include additional claims based on allegations that the transfer by Historical EID of certain PFAS liabilities to Chemours prior to separating Chemours resulted in a fraudulent conveyance or voidable transaction.

Since May 2017, a number of state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against DuPont, Corteva, Historical EID, Chemours, and others, claiming environmental contamination by certain PFAS compounds. Such actions are currently pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Vermont. Generally, the states raise common law tort claims and seek economic impact damages for alleged harm to natural resources, punitive damages, present and future costs to cleanup contamination from certain PFAS compounds, and to abate the alleged nuisance. The North Carolina action includes fraudulent transfer claims related to the Chemours separation, the DowDuPont separations, and questions potential loss of assets caused by future divestitures.

Several lawsuits have been filed by residents, local water districts, and private water companies against Historical EID and Chemours in New York. Additionally, a water district in West Virginia, filed suit in state court against Historical EID, Chemours, Corteva, DuPont, and others alleging contamination as a result of PFOA and PFOS and seeking compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The complaint includes a fraudulent transfer allegation associated with the Chemours separation. In September 2020, a complaint was filed in the Central District of California on behalf of Golden State Water Company against DuPont, Corteva, Historical EID, Chemours, and others, alleging contamination of water systems from PFOS and PFOA. The complaint includes fraudulent transfer claims related to the Chemours separation, the DowDuPont separations, and questions potential loss of assets caused by future divestitures.

There are several actions pending in federal court against Historical EID and Chemours, relating to discharges of PFCs, including GenX, into the Cape Fear River. GenX is a polymerization processing aid and a replacement for PFOA introduced by Historical EID which Chemours continues to manufacture at its Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County, North Carolina. One of these actions is a consolidated putative class action that asserts claims for damages and other relief on behalf of putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or who draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River. Another action is

a consolidated action brought by various North Carolina water authorities, including the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and Brunswick County, that seek actual and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. In addition, an action is pending in North Carolina state court on behalf of about 100 plaintiffs who own wells and property near the Fayetteville Works facility. The plaintiffs seek damages for nuisance allegedly caused by releases of certain PFCs from the site.

In the third quarter 2020, 3 lawsuits were filed in North Carolina state court against Chemours, Historical EID, Corteva and DuPont. The lawsuits seek damages for alleged personal injuries to more than 100 individuals due to alleged exposure to PFOA and GenX originating from the Fayetteville Works plant. These lawsuits also include fraudulent transfer allegations related to the Chemours separation.

Beginning in April 2019, several dozen lawsuits involving water contamination arising from the use of PFAS-containing aqueous firefighting foams (“AFFF”) were filed against Historical EID, Chemours, 3M and other AFFF manufacturers and in different parts of the country. Most were consolidated in multi-district litigation docket in federal district court in South Carolina (the “SC MDL”). Many of those cases also name DuPont as a defendant. Those actions largely seek remediation of the alleged PFAS contamination in and around military bases and airports as well as medical monitoring of affected residents. In September 2020, a complaint was filed in Missouri state court on behalf of a deceased firefighter against 3M, DuPont, Corteva, Historical EID, Chemours and others. The suit seeks damages for injuries and wrongful death of the plaintiff allegedly from his exposure to PFAS contained in firefighting foam. This case has not been removed to the SC MDL.

As of the end of September 2020, approximately 750 personal injury cases have been filed directly in the SC MDL and assert claims on behalf of individual firefighters and others who allege that exposure to PFAS in firefighting foam caused them to develop cancer, including kidney and testicular cancer. DuPont has been named as a defendant in most of these personal injury AFFF cases. DuPont is seeking the dismissal of DowDuPont and DuPont from these actions. Historical EID and the Company have never made or sold aqueous film forming foam, PFOS or PFOS containing products.

Additionally, a case filed by a former firefighter is pending in the Southern District of Ohio seeking certification of a nationwide class of individuals who have detectable levels of PFAS in their blood serum. The suit was filed against 3M and several other defendants in addition to Chemours and Historical EID. The complaint specifically seeks, among other things, the creation of a “PFAS Science Panel” to study the effects of PFAS, but expressly states that the class does not seek compensatory damages for personal injuries. In February 2020, the court denied the defendants' motion to transfer this case to the SC MDL.

In addition to the specific matters described above, the Company is party to other claims and lawsuits arising out of the normal course of business with respect to product liability, patent infringement, governmental regulation, contract and commercial litigation, and other actions. Certain of these actions may purport to be class actions and seek damages in very large amounts. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the possibility is remote that the aggregate of all such other claims and lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on the results of operations, financial condition and cash flows of the Company.

Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated based on current law and existing technologies. At September 30, 2020, the Company had accrued obligations of $79 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, inclusive of $37 million retained and assumed following the DWDP Distributions and $42 million of indemnified liabilities. These obligations are included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" and "Other noncurrent obligations" in the interim Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. This is management’s best estimate of the costs for remediation and restoration with respect to environmental matters for which the Company has accrued liabilities, although it is reasonably possible that the ultimate cost with respect to these particular matters could range up to $172 million above the amount accrued at September 30, 2020. Consequently, it is reasonably possible that environmental remediation and restoration costs in excess of amounts accrued could have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Inherent uncertainties exist in these estimates primarily due to unknown conditions, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies for handling site remediation and restoration. At December 31, 2019, the Company had accrued obligations of $77 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs.

Pursuant to the DWDP Separation and Distribution Agreement, the Company is required to indemnify certain clean-up responsibilities and associated remediation costs. The accrued environmental obligations of $79 million as of September 30, 2020 includes amount for which the Company indemnifies Dow and Corteva. At September 30, 2020, the Company has indemnified Dow and Corteva $8 million and $34 million, respectively.

In connection with the ongoing divestitures and transactions, the Company has indemnified and has been indemnified by respective parties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with these transactions and business activities prior to the completion of the respective transactions. The term of these indemnifications, which typically pertain to environmental, tax and product liabilities, is generally indefinite. At September 30, 2020, indemnified assets were $88 million within "Accounts and notes receivable, net" and $117 million within "Deferred charges and other assets" and indemnified liabilities were $60 million within "Accrued and other current liabilities" and $94 million within "Other noncurrent obligations."

The Company has directly guaranteed various debt obligations under agreements with third parties related to equity affiliates and customers. At September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the Company had directly guaranteed $177 million and $187 million, respectively, of such obligations. These amounts represent the maximum potential amount of future (undiscounted) payments that the Company could be required to make under the guarantees. The Company would be required to perform on these guarantees in the event of default by the guaranteed party.

The Company assesses the payment/performance risk by assigning default rates based on the duration of the guarantees. These default rates are assigned based on the external credit rating of the counterparty or through internal credit analysis and historical default history for counterparties that do not have published credit ratings. For counterparties without an external rating or available credit history, a cumulative average default rate is used.